Full text of "Annals of Christ's Hospital"

See other formats

ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

VIEW OF THE BUILDINGS ABOUT 1720

ANNALS

CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

E. H. PEARCE, M. A.

VICAR OF CHRIST CHURCH AND RECTOR OF
S. LEONARD FOSTER, E.C.

FORMERLY “GRECIAN” AND ASSISTANT MASTER AT CHRIST'S HOSPITAL

“ Christes Hospitall erected was , a pas singe dede of pittie ”

(Lines under a portrait in the Court Room)

METHUEN & CO.

36 ESSEX STREET W.C.
LONDON
1901

PREFACE

HRIST’S HOSPITAL has long enjoyed the happiness

which is stated to consist in having “ no history.” Men
like Wilson and Trollope have published accounts of the
school, which may or may not have been accurate in so far
as they deal with matters which came under the direct obser-
vation of the writers, but which were not “ history ” in the
sense of investigation. The only possible way to get at the
facts is to go through the voluminous and carefully preserved
minutes of the Courts and Committees, whose benevolent
work has never ceased since the foundation. The kindness
of the Treasurer and the Chief Clerk has permitted me to
examine this store of historical material, and, wherever it
was possible, I have allowed the worthy citizens to give an
account of their stewardship in their own words and their
own spelling of them.

But this perpetual government by Courts and Committees
has made it impossible to divide the record into periods.
The year 1891 is indeed the only landmark in the history
of the Hospital. It has therefore seemed best to proceed
on the plan here adopted of arranging the material under
subject-headings rather than in fictitious eras.

It is needless to add that I am indebted to many friends.
Besides the Counting House authorities already referred to,
I have had the constant assistance of Mr. William Lempriere,

Vll

V1U

PREFACE

whose knowledge and research have forged many a weapon
for those legal contests which have been forced on a peaceful
and once prosperous institution. It has been thought best
that the illustrations should show the buildings in their
present and alas ! their final state ; and here I must express
my indebtedness, among others, to my friend and former
colleague, the Rev. D. F. Heywood, and to Mr. Charles E.
Browne, the Science Master. My brother, the Rev. E.
Courtenay Pearce, has kindly revised the proofs, and Mr.
Herbert Welch has compiled an ample index.

But, where debts are in question, it is impossible to close
this record without a sense of its inadequacy as an expression
of my lasting obligations to my dear “ nursing mother.”
Happily she needs no memorial. Her children rise up and
call her blessed.

E. H. P.

Christ Church Vicarage
October , 1901

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.

The Grey Friars

CHAPTER II.

The Foundation of the School

CHAPTER III.

The School and its Children

CHAPTER IV.

The School’s Buildings

CHAPTER V.

The Grammar School

CHAPTER VI.

The Mathematical School

CHAPTER VII.

The Music School

CHAPTER VIII.

Writing, Reading, and Drawing

CHAPTER IX.

The Juniors and the Girls .

CHAPTER X.

Food and Clothing

PAGE

135

146

163

173

CONTENTS

CHAPTER XI.

PAGE

The School at Church . . . . . 191

CHAPTER XII.

Of Great Occasions . . . ... 204

CHAPTER XIII.

Of Rites and Ceremonies . . . . 217

CHAPTER XIV.

Out of School . . . ... 243

CHAPTER XV.

After School . . . ... 267

CHAPTER XVI.

Reform . . . . ... 285

Note and Appendices . . ... 300

Index . . . . ... 305

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

View of the Buildings about 1720

Frontispiece

The Old Hall and Whittington’s Library .

FACING

PAGE

The Churchyard of Christ Church

Sir Richard Dobbs ....

King Edward VI.

The Presentation of the Charter .

The Lodge, Christ Church Passage

The Giffs Cloister ....

An Arch in the Giffs Cloister

The Garden and the Grecians’ Cloister

The Hall .....

The Counting House Door

7 1

The Fourth Form Room

The Old Grammar School

The Grammar and Mathematical Schools .

The Charter of the Royal Mathematical School

IOI

The Old Mathematical School

108

The Hall-Play and Christ Church Tower .

119

Badges —

(1) The King’s Foundation ; (2) Stone’s Foundation ; (3) Stock’s
Foundation . . . ...

129

The Writing Master’s (now the Warden’s) House

136

The Hall .....

141

The Writing School ....

I5I

The Hertford School —

(r) The Girls’ School ; (2) The Playground

163

A Group of Girls in Verrio’s Picture

170

The Giffs and Johnny’s ....

180

A Grecian in 1816 ....

185

Christ Church in 1816 .

197

Queen Victoria at Temple Bar, November 9th, 1837

204

Xll

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FACING PAGE

The Ditch . . . . ... 212

The Band in the Hall-Play . . . . 221

The Counting House Yard . . ... 228

Speeches on St. Matthew’s Day . . ... 234

Drawing the Lotteries in Coopers’ Hall . ... 241

Boys’ Wards —

(1) In 1823 ; (2) In 1901 . . ... 249

The Arches under the Writing School . ... 253

The Pulpit in the Hall . . - ... 261

Dame Mary Ramsey . . . ... 268

The Porter’s Lodge (east side) . . ... 276

The Court Room . . . ... 285

The Treasurer’s House and Garden . ... 294

Ground Plan of the Buildings before the Fire
Ground Plan at the Present Time .

ANNALS

CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

CHAPTER I.

THE GREY FRIARS

“ Laudate et benedicite mio signore et regratiate ;
Et seruite a lui cum grande humilitate.”

Hymn of St. Francis.

O account of the rise and progress of Christ’s Hospital

can be artistically or even historically complete which
begins with its actual date of foundation. Other men had
lived upon its present site and had up to their lights carried
out the same noble labours. Christ’s Hospital entered into
their habitation and gave itself wholly to that work of
nurture and education which had been but a part of the
daily routine of the Franciscans. To see them steadily and
whole, we pass back into the twelfth century, into the heyday
of mediaeval monasticism. Its annus mirabilis is 1 1 8 1 , the
year of the birth at Assisi of a boy who was christened
“ Giovanni,” and who grew up into the ordinary mischievous
and extravagant ways of an unchecked son of comparatively
wealthy parents. But just over the threshold of the
thirteenth century serious illness overtook him and made
him thoughtful. Thought turned into action, and the action
was so effective that Francis drew many round him, who
were determined, first of all, to cultivate individuality of life ;
further, to fashion their life by what they read of the life of

2 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Jesus ; and, in pursuance of that, to give up all social ties.
These, roughly, were the principles laid down in the Vita
Fratrum , a manual whose directions received the approval
of Innocent III. in A.D. 1210. Popes, even the few who
stand upon the high level of Innocent III., have seldom
confirmed anything that has not already received the un-
mistakable hall-mark of public approbation. Francis and
his followers had caught that approbation beyond all doubt.

The nature of our present investigation enables us to put
our finger upon the reason of the welcome extended to the
Friars Minors. It lay in the attention they paid to the
towns. Monasteries had looked after the country districts,
but the vigorous and growing commercial communities had,
in regard to their religion, been obliged to shift for them-
selves. Thus, if the Franciscan was an interloper, at least
he found no one else in the field. But the Franciscan was
also determined to make a protest against the inordinate
wealth and luxury of the clergy. His life was to be fashioned
according to the circumstances of those among whom he was
to preach the Gospel ; and though our first insight into these
commercial centres reveals a certain municipal development,
there is little trace of architectural skill and none of sanita-
tion. The mechanics lived mostly on undrained or marshy
land by a river. The Franciscan therefore must be glad,
said his leader, to settle down in such places. The mechanics
were content with wattle huts and mud hovels. Why should
their missionaries desire anything better? These provisions
will help the reader to follow the principle of the first move-
ments of the nine brethren of this already famous order, who
reached Dover in the year 1224, nine years after Pope
Honorius had confirmed the Rule of St. Francis. Of the
nine, four were “ clerici ” and five “ laid,” and whereas the latter
were all foreign and apparently Italian, of the Clerics only
Brother Agnellus of Pisa, the Provincial, who was afterwards
buried in the Abbey Choir, belonged to Italy, while the other
three were English. Their names are worth recording—
Richard de Indewurde, Richard of Devon, and William de
Esseby — as showing how attractive the son of Assisi was to

THE GREY FRIARS

men of a northern clime. Of these nine, four pushed on to
London, and received their first lodging in the house of their
great rivals, the Dominicans, the Brothers Preachers, with
whom they spent a fortnight. Then, by the kind offices of
some clerical friends, they hired the dwelling of Mr. Sheriff
John Travers “ in vico Cornhulle,” where they built some cells,
but not a chapel, and remained till the following summer.

Clearly their work began to tell, and the usual overcrowd-
ing of their “ shelter ” was the result. The place where they
dwelt was too strait for them, and too salubrious. They had
no right to be upon the pleasant eminence of Cornhill ; the
air was not bad enough nor pestilential enough. If he is
the true benefactor who gives us just what we most want,
then the Franciscan found such a one at this moment. For
Mr. John Iwyn, or Ewen, citizen and mercer, had a property
in Stynkyng Lane and in the parish of St. Nicholas Shambles
(the very names must have made the Franciscan mouth water
with their possibilities of sickness and smells), and he was
ready to make this over to the Order as their future dwell-
ing. The deed of conveyance is to be read at the end of six
centuries and a half, and may be found in Leland’s Collectanea.
Iwyn there describes that the gift was made “ for the health
of [his] soul, in pure and perpetual alms,” in order “ to enter-
tain the poor Fryers-Minors as long as they will stay there.”
It is due to this cheerful giver that Christ’s Hospital stands
where it is to-day.

Two things will readily suggest themselves to any who
look into the matter : first, that the Franciscan must have
commended his cause to the people by the work that he did
among them, for Iwyn not only handed over his land, but
shortly after himself also, and he died a pious brother of the
order; secondly, that the civic authorities recognised the
mission and accorded it their sympathy. There is no reason
to doubt the statement of the Chronicler of the Grey Friars
that it was the devotio civium which made this change of
abode possible, for the deed is witnessed by the Mayor, the
Sheriffs, the Alderman of the Ward and other citizens.
Iwyn’s example was soon followed. We have the names

4 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

of the various citizens who gave more land or built choir and
nave, chapter-house, dormitories, refectory, infirmary, library.
They were mayors and other forgotten City magnates. All
the essentials of a monastery were there within five years.
The Order had no great traditions to attract benefactions ; it
had only the testimony of those who watched the brothers at
work in Stynkyng Lane and the Shambles, and by the banks
of that open sewer, the Town Ditch.

Alas ! it is of the essence of such success that it falls by its
own weight. A very few years passed before the followers
of Francis, who stripped himself of his wealth, became
the recipients of countless benefactions. Whereas their
founder meant them to keep close to the hearts and needs
of the lower and middle classes, they became the pets of
Queens and countesses. Within a century of the Confirma-
tion of the Rule, Margaret, second wife of Edward I., gave
a sum of money to build a yet larger chapel to accommodate
the fashionable crowds who flocked to their services. The
Countess of Pembroke built the nave, the Earl and Countess
of Gloucester made large contributions towards the work,
including, as Stow tells us, “ many rich jewels and ornaments
to be used in the same.” The very first rumour of such
riches must have made poor St. Francis turn in his grave.
Queen Isabel, wife of Edward II., whom Gray in The Bard
called “ She-wolf of France, with unrelenting fangs,” Queen
Philippa, wife of Edward III., the Earl of Richmond and
many others followed the same example of munificence, and
it is no wonder that in Stow’s time the Church had grown
into one of the grandest in the land. It measured then
three hundred feet in length, eighty-nine feet in breadth, and
sixty-four in height. If anyone wants a practical idea of
the comparative size of it, let him stand under the tower
of the Christ Church of to-day, and think that the former
church, which was of the same breadth as its successor,
extended twice as far to the westward of him as the present
one does to the east. The only definite information about
the details of this great fabric is contained in a survey made
in 1617, a copy of which is among the archives of St. Bar-

THE GREY FRIARS

tholomew’s Hospital, which owns the great tithes of the
parish and the patronage of the benefice of Christ Church.
The building, it appears, was an absolute rectangle. There
was no projecting of chapels or of transepts. The nave and
the choir had each seven bays, and these with the transept
gave it fifteen windows on each side ; the west window was
the gift of Edward III. The west end of the choir had its
screen, leaving the transept a self-contained space between
choir and nave, called the “ Ambulatorium inter chorum et
altaria”; so that the Abbey came to be looked upon as two
churches, upper and lower, which the unceremonious habits
of Tudor times effectually separated by turning the transept
into a public way, now known as Christ Church Passage.
There were at least eleven altars at the east end of the nave
and in the aisles, the chapel of St. Francis being the second
on the south aisle, just where the parish vestry now stands.
In the choir two bays were occupied with the friars’ stalls,
leaving four bays clear, and in the latter space, now repre-
sented by the centre aisle, stood the tombs of Queen Mar-
garet, Queen Isabel, and Joan of the Tower, Queen of
Scotland. These brief details serve to show that the Great
Fire and Sir Christopher Wren between them have more to
answer for here than in most places; but of this, more
later on.

But the change from the mud-built sanctuary, which Francis
ordered, to this temple which was one-and-twenty years in
building, was not more violent than that which is implied in
the erection of a library by the immortal, if somewhat fabu-
lous, Dick Whittington in 1429. Francis was not a student ;
he even objected to students as a class. The brethren, he con-
stantly insisted, wanted no book but a breviary, and even this
they could dispense with as long as they had him. “Ego
breviarium.” He himself was their breviary. Nevertheless,
the thirst for knowledge soon laid hold of his successors, and
the mere fact that Oxford and Cambridge were among their
first settlements helped to guide their steps in the ways of
scientific investigation. Roger Bacon might complain that
he was not allowed to use manuscripts enough ; but, if

6 ANNALS OF CHRIST'S HOSPITAL

Francis had been there, Bacon would never have been
allowed to know enough to wish for more. Anyhow, the
Franciscans of the centuries that followed were men of
learning, and Whittington’s library was no doubt accepted
with gratitude. It stood on the site of the present Middle
or Grecians’ Cloister, up to about the year 1832, when
the beautiful, if dilapidated, building, which escaped the
Fire, fell into the hands of restorer and improver. One
would like to think that both Coleridge and Lamb had
the benefit of it ; but by their day it had been turned into
a dormitory. Still it may be worth while to record Stow’s
description of it as being “all seeled with Wainscot, having
twentie eight desks, and eight double setles of Wainscot.”
Whittington “ bare foure hundred pound ” of the cost of the
books to fill it, and Doctor Thomas Winchelsey the rest.”
Well may Mr. Trollope, the naive historian of Christ’s
Hospital, remark that “ it seems that some ralaxation had
taken place in the original rule of St. Francis, mitigating its
extreme severity.”

We need not dwell further on the history of the House of
the Grey Friars ; indeed we have no material to work with
in constructing their subsequent history. Their Chronicler
looks out upon the world ; he has little to say of what
happened within his own walls. Provincial chapters of
“ freeres ” minors were held there, he tells us, and the Mayor
and the Corporation paid an annual state visit to the House
on St. Francis’ Day from 1508 onwards, as they have done to
the present House on St. Matthew’s Day since 15 53- But
the time came when the eye of the Grey Friars’ Chronicler
was turned suddenly on the fortunes of his own House, and
the shock is so great that something goes amiss with his pen
or his presence of mind. His entry for the sixteenth year
of Henry VIII., A.D. 1524, is as follows: "Thys yere the
King and the cardinalle Wolsey the ixth day of Marche
intendyd to a come and to see the Grayfreeres, but the ware
lett tylle . . .” The italicised words are deleted in the original,
and what follows is apparently an explanation of the mistake.
“Also that day that the Kynge as he came owte of hys

THE OLD HALL AND WHITTINGTON’S LIBRARY

THE GREY FRIARS .

chamber to come to the Gray Freeres, tydynge was browte
hym that the Frenche Kynge was tane by the duke of
Burgone.” A bonfire at “ Powlles churche dore,” and finally,
a procession and Te Deum in the cathedral “ on Sent Mathu
daye,” seem to imply that public attention was diverted from
plundering the Friars to triumphing over the French. But
only for a time. Wolsey had settled the policy of plunder
in his own mind, and he was not to be easily put off. Indeed,
the very capture of Francis compelled him to provide some-
how the sinews for a war of which he disapproved.* True,
he often diverted the funds of conventual houses to better
uses, but his present need was money, and what method of
raising it was so simple as a “visit” to the Grey Friars?
“Thys yere,” says our Chronicler in 1525, “beganne the
cardinalle Wolsey to enter his visitacioun,” and “on Absolve
day doctor Allyn beganne in the Gray Freeres at afternone.”
Clement VII. had given a bull for the purpose, and the
Franciscans and others appealed in vain against the exercise
of Wolsey’s legatine powers.f Loud complaints also were
heard of the harshness and unscrupulousness of this same
Dr. Allen, who by the exercise of these qualities came to a
violent end as Archbishop of Dublin. J But whether Wolsey
had power to act or not, and whether his myrmidons were
brutes or angels, mattered little. A precedent had been set,
which Henry was not slow to follow up, and ten years later
he issued an instrument under the great seal authorising
Crumwell and those appointed by him “ to visit ... all and
singular . . . monasteries, both of men and women, ... to
sequestrate the revenues of the church or place, and keep
them in safe ward.” It was small consolation to great
Houses like ours that the lesser were visited first ; their turn
was bound to come. The Franciscans for some reason or
other survived longer than most, but the end came in
November, 1538. There is no document in all history more
pathetic or pitiful than their deed of surrender. Trollope

* cf. Creighton’s Wolsey , p. no.

+ Gasquet, Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries , vol. i. p. 86.
X Brewer, Henry VIII., vol. ii. p. 270.

8 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

gives it at length (on p. 21) without stating his authority, and
Mr. J. A. Kingdon (Poynts and Grafton , ed. i895,p. 75) suggests
reasonable doubts of its genuineness ; but a few sentences will
show how they said what they were told to say, and tried in
their humiliation to believe it true. “ We, the Warden, and
Freers, of the howse of Saynt Francis in London, . . . doo
profoundly consider that the perfeccion of Christian buying
dothe not conciste in dome ceremonies, weryng of a grey
coote, disgeasing our selffe aftyr straunge fassions.” “ No,”
the poor creatures proceed, “ the very tru waye to please
God, and to Hue a tru Christian man ” is something quite
different, and it consists in large measure in conforming
themselves to the wayward will of their “ supreme hed vndre
God, in erthe, the King’s Majestie.” Therefore “ wythe like
mutuall assent and consent” they resign into the hands of
his “ mooste noble grace ” all the “ lands, tenements, gardens,
medowes, waters, pondyards, fedyngs, pastures, comens, rentes,
reversions,” and only beg that they may be appointed to such
livings as “other secular Priestes comenly be preferryd vnto.”
The document is signed by Thomas Chapman, D.D., and
twenty brethren, “whose signatures,” says Trollope with the
scorn of a “ C. H.” caligraphist, “ are illegible,” though Mr.
Kingdon has read them without difficulty.

Thus the monastery, begun by a Queen in 1306, and the
minster that sheltered the remains alike of the “she wolf of
France” and countless lesser folk, were turned by a King
from pious uses of one sort, and there was an interval before
they could be directed to equally pious uses of another.
There was no more “ Gray Freeres,” though the name
haunted the House for centuries ; but the chronicler goes
on as before, and tells us that in A.D. i544> after it had
presumably lain empty for six years, “ before Crystmas was
moche wyne tane of France with their chyppes, and layed in
the churche sumtyme the Gray Freeres, alle the churche fulle
in every place of it.” Is he a monk of the popular sort, this
Chronicler, and does he see a natural connection between
Christmas and this cargo ; or is he a prohibitionist before his
time, and does he groan over the sacrilege? On the other

THE GREY FRIARS

hand, Stow implies that the church had been robbed of all
its goods in 1538, and used as a store all along.* Neither of
them mentions the fact that Richard Grafton set up a print-
ing press in the church, in addition to the one worked by
him in a portion of what “Blues” know as the “Hall-Play.”
But the Chronicler and Stow are at one in stating that on the
3rd of January, 1547, the church was reopened, and “masse
sayd at the auteres with dyvers presttes, and it was namyd
Crystys churche of the fundacion of Kynge Henry the viij.”
Our story of Christ’s Hospital would not be complete without
this glance at those who went before us. “ Others have
laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.”

Survey, ed. 1603, p. 320.

CHAPTER II.

THE FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL

“ We praise Thee for our Founders and Benefactors.”

Bishop Compton’s C.II. Prayers.

WE are thus brought to a point at which we may
suggest that in regard to Christ’s Hospital some
injustice has been done to the work of Henry VIII. A
modern schoolboy is said to have defined him as “ a great
widower,” and schoolboys of a larger growth are apt to
associate him with the divorce of queens or the dissolution
of convents or the disestablishment of Roman Catholicism.
The candid investigator comes from his researches with a
settled conviction that Henry’s rather bulky effigy ought at
this moment to be looking down from the niche over the
little lodge in Christ Church Passage upon every passer in
and out of the famous buildings.

And justice to the father involves no shadow of discredit
to the son. Edward’s action in the matter is as clear as his
piety was strong and his body feeble. Whether his ministers
moulded his young will, or his will the ministers, is as much
a matter of surmise and guesswork as it is in the case of a
sovereign of to-day. We can only deal with the facts as we
find them.

And first, the cause. The monasteries, where they were
not absolutely pulled down, had ceased to act as shelters for
the submerged tenth of the populace, or whatever the par-
ticular fraction was in the middle of the sixteenth century.
Trollope* records a calculation that the religious houses,
“ with their various appendages . . . occupied, within the city

* Christ's Hospital, p. 25.

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL n

of London, nearly two-thirds of the entire area ; and about
one fifth of the entire population is supposed to have been
cloistered within their walls.”

Whatever was at that time the proportion of pauperdom
to the rest of the population, there is no question that the
Dissolution was followed by a great outbreak of poverty, for
which there was no present remedy. Latimer had foreseen
it, and suggested that in each county some conventual houses
should be left for educational and eleemosynary purposes ;
and it is a pleasure to remember that he and Ridley, who
were not divided in death, were at one also in the work
which led up to the foundation of the Royal Hospitals.

Another famous name must not be omitted in this connec-
tion. Among the letters in the Cotton Library is one from
Sir Richard Gresham, whose son enriched the City with
benefactions that are still beneficent. The old man writes
in 1538 to Henry, his “most repuysant, and noble Prince,”
his “ most dradd, beloved, and naturall Soveraigne Lorde.”
His duty obliges him to approach the King’s Majesty, for he
is his “ Lieuetenant and Mayer ” of the City of London, and
somebody must come to the “ ayde and comfort of the poor,
syke, blynde, aged* and impotent persons beyng not able to
help themselffis, nor havyng no place certen where they may
be refreshed or lodged at, tyll they be holpen and cured of
their diseases and sicknes.” For this he is not slow to
suggest a remedy. “ So it is, most gracious Lorde, that here
and withyn the Cytie of London be iii. Hospitalls, or
Spytalls, commonly called Seynt George’s Spytall, Seynt
Barthilmewes Spytall, and Seynt Thomas Spytall, and
the New Abbey of Tower Hill, founded of good devotion by
auncient Fathers, and endowed with great possessions and
rentes, only for the releeffe, comfort, and helping of the
poore and impotent people not beyng able to help them-
selffs, and not to the maintenance of chanons, priests, and
monks to live in pleasure.” Let these foundations, Gresham
suggested, be used for their original purpose. Let the King
give orders that the Mayor of the City of London “and
his brethren the Aldermen for the tyme beyng, shall and

i2 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

may from henceforth, have the order, disposicion, rule, and
governaunce, both of all the lands, tenements, and revenevves
apperteyning and belongyn to the said hospitalls, governours
of theym, and of the ministers which be, or shall be, withyn
them.” *

Thus the first Gresham sketched the project which was
afterwards to take so definite a shape. The matter could
not possibly be settled all in a moment. We need be at no
pains to invent reasons, as Trollope does,f for the delay;
nor was Henry, as far as we know him, the man to be moved
by “ a superstitious dread of his approaching end,” of which
he can scarcely have received very definite information. He
had made up his mind that the foundation of the Royal
Hospitals was an economic necessity. The indenture and
the letters patent were made out in due course. Both bear
the date of December 27th, 1 546, “ in the xxxviijth yeare of
the raigne.” The indenture in its preamble sets forth the
initial reason of the foundation, as already explained. It
is the result of Henry’s “ consideringe the myserable estate
of the poore aged sick sore and ympotente people as well
men as women lyinge and goinge about begginge in the
common streates of the saide Cittye of London and the
suburbes of the same ” — not only to their own “ greate paine
and sorrow,” for they were poor and must stand their
chance, but “ to the greate infeccion hurte and noyance of
his Grace’s lovinge subjectes which of necessitie muste dailie
goe and passe by.”

Five-and-thirty years later John Howes’ Contemporaneous
Account gives us exactly the same factor in the great
result. “ Thirdly,” he says, “ in the Latter tyme of that
moste famous and worthie prynce King Henry the eighte
after yc Wynning of Bullaigne & ending of the King’s
warres yt appeareth that there were greate nombers of
poore lame ydell & maysterles men dispersed into dyvers
parts of this Realme, but chiefely aboute this Cittie of
London.” % Clearly, then, there was a cause. The in-

* Cotton Library, Cleop. E. 4, p. 222; Strype, Eccl. Mem., vol. i. p. 423.

f p. 28. t cf. Malcolm’s Lmdinium , vol. ii. p. 554-

THE CHURCH-YARD OF CHRIST CHURCH

FROM A I'HOTOtiR Al*H BY .MU. FKKEMAN DOVASTON

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL 13

denture came none too soon. What did it promise to give ?
From its wilderness of legal phraseology we can extract the
following. It granted to the City the Church and site of
the house “of the late Gray Freyrs,” the Fratry, the Library,
the Dortor, and the Chapter House, “ all the land and soile
called the greate Cloyster and the littell Cloyster,” various
buildings, some in the hands of specified occupiers, some
already “voyde”; also “the late Hospitall of St. Bartholo-
mewe in West Smythfield nigh London,” the Parish Churches
of St. Nicholas and St. Ewen, and as much of the Parish
of St. Sepulchre as lay within “ the precincte and scite ” of
the Grey Friars. The King reserved to himself and his
successors the revenues of certain houses and lands belonging
to St. Bartholomew’s, but assigned to the Corporation of
London the tithes, offerings, and other “ spirituall profittes ”
of the Churches of St. Nicholas and St. Ewen and of the
Grey Friars, while the Church of the latter was to serve for
these united parishes under the name of Christ Church,
which it retained and handed on to its successor, as rebuilt
by Sir Christopher Wren. Provision was further made that
it should always have “ one preist sufficient learned to
declare preach and teach the worde of GOD trulie and
sincerely to the comon people which shall be called Vicar
thear,” and also “ one other preist which shall be called the
Visitor of Newgat.” The Vicar of Christ Church was to
receive his stipend from the Corporation, “ one annuitie or
annuall pencion of twentye sixe poundes thirteen shillinges
and fowrepence and a sufficient mansion for his habitacion,”
the advowson to be in the hands of the Lord Mayor and
Corporation, as the Governors of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital.

It was on the day of the reopening of the Church (January
3rd, 1547) that Ridley, from Paul’s Cross, announced to the
City the gift of the “ House of the Poor.” How far then
was this a generous arrangement ? How is it in accord with
the greed of the Tudors, and of Henry in particular? This
at least may be urged, that the King cannot have gained
very much from the bargain. It is true that he was only
disgorging what he had already appropriated, but St.

i4 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Bartholomew’s was estimated at the Dissolution to be worth
,£304 1 6s. 5 d., and John Howes states that he gave with it
a yearly income of £380 4s. 2 d. The discredit of the
transaction appears dimly in the preliminary negotiations ;
for Henry had plainly endeavoured to make the Corporation
pay for St. Bartholomew’s and the rest of the “ gift ” ; but
happily there were hard-headed men in the City, then as now,
and the Tudor found them, as he confessed, very “pinch-
pence” in their transactions. Apparently then he made a
virtue of necessity. He was the “ dator,” not the “ hilaris dator ”
of Apostolic precept. “ This was a noble foundacon of this
worthie King in the latter ende of his raigne,” says “Dignitie”
in Howes’ Dialogue , only six-and-thirty years after the event ;
“ his fame shall never die so longe as the worlde endurethe.”
But it came to pass a few months after the signing of the
Indentures that Henry died, and the historian of Christ’s
Hospital finds himself looking into a gap of five years with-
out the wherewithal to fill it. What use was made during the
earlier part of Edward’s reign of the “Grey Friars” property?
How far did it fulfil its object as a House of Detention for
vagabonds and as a shelter for the poor ? Did it do any educa-
tional work ? It is almost impossible to say. Some informa-
tion may be derived from one or two entries in the records
of the City Fathers. Here is one belonging to the first year
of Edward VI., dated July 14th, which I transliterate into
modern English : “ Item this day Sir Martin Bowes, Knight,
and Mr. Barne and Mr. Hynde, Aldermen, William Rawlyns
and Thomas Lodge, Grocers, and George Tadlowe, Haber-
dasher, are assigned to receive all the money coming towards
the poor of the devotion of the people through the City
monthly, and also to survey the works of Christ Church and
of the Hospital for the poor.” There are other entries on
July 26th and September 29th in the same year, dealing with
Mr. Alderman Hynde’s discharge of his duties in this matter,
which had been so “well begone,” and there is reason for
supposing that St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and what would
ultimately be Christ’s Hospital were being benefited and
developed concurrently. The next pertinent entry in the

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL 15

same records brings us close to the end of these five mysteri-
ous years. It is again the 14th of July, but the date is 1552,
and we are within six months of the beginning of the occu-
pation. “ At this Court,” it says, “ for divers urgent considera-
tions moving the same, it was agreed that there shall be as
much of the orphanage (i.e. the orphan fund) of the nexte
orphanes that shall fall, where any part thereof may reason-
ably be taken and be spared, brought into this Court, as shall
amount to .£300, the same to be lent and delivered im-
mediately to the Governors of the House of the Poor
towards the finishing of their new frame in St. Nicholas
Shambles.”

This extract is at once difficult and important. The
“ House of the Poor ” was then, and for all legal purposes
still is, the name of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital ; but the
“new frame in St. Nicholas Shambles” may well have some
reference to Christ’s Hospital. Moreover, the grant of £3 00
was to go towards “ finishing ” the work, which must clearly
have been begun at an earlier date than we give it credit for.
Stow dates the beginning of “ the preparing of the Grey
Friers house in London for the poore fatherless children ”
from July 26th, 1552,* but in the above extract from the
Corporation records, written “this day,” a grant is made
towards “finishing” the work on July 14th, 1552, or twelve
days before Stow’s date for beginning, which could be got
over if we read “furnish” for “finish.” The difficulty is a
small one, if we can once persuade ourselves that the years
that followed Henry’s original grant were not wasted, that
money was being raised, and interest was being excited.
The City had set its hand to the plough, and the City has
a way of not turning back.

But if the actual day of the inception of the great task
eludes us, we are on sure ground when we open the ex-
quisitely written original “account,” dated 1552-8, which
is still in the custody of the Clerk. After a statement of
moneys received from the ward-boxes, from the great box
in the cloister, and from individual citizens, it begins, in July,
* Annales (ed. 1615), p. 608.

1 6 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

1552, with payments of “rewards” to carpenters, bricklayers,
et hoc genus o?n?ie. And it is only when we come to the
month of November that provisions were needed for inmates.
We are however able, by means of Howes’ Contempora-
neous Account , to trace the steps between January 1547
and November 1552 a little more definitely, at any rate
during the last part of the period : “ In the latter yeres of
King Edwarde,” he says, “ the officers began to be necligent
and chefely the bedells, so that the streates and lanes in
London began to swarme wth beggers and roges ... so that
St. Bartholomewes hospitall was not able to receyve the tenth
part of those that then were to be provided for.”

The cry went up from the pulpits of London that further
help was needed. Edward VI. has been the victim at various
hands of the most extravagant eulogy, and indeed one who
came between Henry and Mary had a chance to deserve
praise. Whatever was his real character or virtue, he was
certainly not deaf to a plain and practical petition, and the
Court Preachers were not slow to make it. Listen, for in-
stance, to Thomas Leaver. It is the Fourth Sunday in Lent,
and the Gospel for the day is the Feeding of the Five
Thousand. In the middle of his sermon the good Master
of St. John’s College turns to the King: “O merciful Lord,
what a number of poor, feeble, halt, blind, lame, sickly, yea
with idle vagabonds and dissembling caitiffs mixed among
them, lye and creep, begging in the miry streets of London
and Westminster? ” What, he asks, can be the use of bidding
them sit down in quietness and industry, unless care be taken
that there shall be enough “grass in the place ’’? On a mind
young and receptive, such as Edward’s apparently was, an
appeal of this nature could not fail of its effect.

Still more was he touched by the pleading of Ridley. The
famous incident, on whose main facts it is impossible in view
of the evidence to cast the slightest doubt, is mentioned
briefly by Howes, and with some detail by Stow, who had it
from Richard Grafton. It will therefore be the simplest way
to take it from Grafton himself ( Chronicle , ed. 1809, vol. ii.

p. 529):—

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL 17

< Not long after the death of the sayde Duke (Somerset)
and his complices, it chaunced the reuerend father in God
Maister Doctor Ridley then Bishop of London to preach
before the ICinges Maiestie at Westminster. In the which
sermon he made a fruitfull and Godly exhortation to the
riche to be merciful vnto the poore, and also moued such as
were in aucthoritie to trauaile by some charitable waye and
meane to comfort and relieue them. Wherevpon the Kinges
Maiestie beyng a Prince of such towardnesse and vertue for
hys yeres as England before neuer brought forth, and the
same also beyng so well treyned and brought vp in al Godly
knowledge, as well by his dere Vncle the late Protector as also
by his verteous and learned Scholemaisters, was so carefull of
the good gouernment of the realme, and chiefly to do and
preferre such thinges as most specially touched the honor
of almightie GOD. And vnderstandyng that a great number
of poore people did swarme in this realme, and chiefly in the
Citie of London, and that no good order was taken for them,
did sodainly and of himselfe send to the sayd Bishop as-
soone as his Sermon was ended, willyng him not to depart
vntill that he had spoken with him (and this that I nowe
write was the verye report of the sayde Bishop Ridley) and
accordyng to the Kynges commaundement he gaue hys at-
tendaunce. And so soone as the Kinges Maiestie was at
leysure, he Called for him and made him come vnto him in
a great Galery at Westminster, wherein to his knowledge,
and the Kinge also told him so, there was present no mo
persons than they two, and therfore made him sit downe in
one chaire, and he himselfe in another, which as it seemed
were before the coming of the Bishop there purposely set,
and caused the Bishop mauger his teeth to be couered, and
then entred communication with him in this sort, first geuing
him most heartie thankes for his Sermon and good exhorta-
tion, and therein rehersed such speciall thinges as he had
noted, and that so many that the Bishop sayde, Truly, truly,
(for that was commonly his othe), I could neuer haue thought
that excellency to haue bene in his grace, that I behelde and
saw in him. At the last the Kings Maiestie much com-
mended him for his exhortation for the reliefe of the poore, but
my Lorde sayth he, ye willed such as are in aucthoritie to be
carefull thereof and to deuise some good order for theyr re-
liefe, wherein I thinke you meant me, for I am in highest place,
and therefore am the first that must make answere vuto GOD
for my negligence if I shoulde not be carefull therein, know-
yng it to be the expresse commaundement of almightie God

i8 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

to haue compassion of his poore and nedie members for whom
we must make an accompt vnto him. And truely my Lorde
I am before all things most willing to trauayle that way, and
I doubt nothing of your long and approved wisedome and
learnyng, who hauyng such good zeale as wissheth helpe
vnto them, but that also you haue had some conference with
others what wayes are best to be taken therein, the which I am
desirous tovnderstand,and therefore I pray you say your minde.

‘ The Bishop thinkyng least of that matter, and beyng
amased to here the wisedome and earnest zeale of the King
was, as he sayd himselfe, so astonied that he could not well
tell what to say. But after some pawse sayd that, as he
thought, at this presence for some entraunce to be had it
were good to practise with the Citie of London, because the
number of the poore there are very great, and the Citizens
are many and also wise. And he doubted not but they were
also both pitifull and mercifull, as the Maior and his brethren
and other the worshipfull of the sayd Citie, and that if it
would please the Kinges Maiestie to direct his gracious letter
vnto the Maior of London, willyng hym to call vnto him
such assistaunce as he should thinke meete to consult of
thys matter for some order to be taken therein, he doubted
not but good should folow thereof. And he himselfe
promised the King to be one that would earnestly trauaile
therein. The King forthwith not onely graunted his letter,
but made the Bishop tary vntill the same was written, and
his hand and signet set therevnto, and commaunded the
Bishop not only to deliuer the same letter himselfe, but
also to signifie vnto the Maior that it was the King’s speciall
request and expresse commaundement, that the Maior should
therein trauaile, and assoone as he might conueniently geue
knowledge vnto him how farre he had proceded therein.
The Bishop was so joyous of the hauing of this letter, and
that he had nowe an occasion to trauaile in that good matter,
wherein he was merveylous zelous, that nothing could more
haue pleased and delighted him. Wherefore the same night
he came to the Maior of London, who then was Sir Richard
Dobbes Knight and deliuered the Kinges letter, and shewed
his message with effect. . . . And the next day being Monday
he desired the Bishop of London to dine with him, and
agaynst that time the Maior promised that he would sende
for such men as he thought meetest to talke of this matter,
and so he did. And sent first for two Aldermen and six
Commoners, and afterwards were appoynted more to the
number of xxiiii.’

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL 19

For the details of their proposals we go to “ Howes ”

I. (i.). The House of the Grey Friars must become a
hospital for “ fatherless children and other poore mens chil-
dren,” who could there find meat, drink, clothes, lodging, and
learning, and “ officers to attende vppon them.

(ii.) Considering “ the corrupte nature of the children whoe
being taken from the dounghill mighte one infecte another,”
Finsbury Court should be acquired as a sanatorium.

(iii.) Infants should be kept in the country till they were
old enough to be instructed ; “ but allwaies at Easter
broughte home.”

II. For the lame and the aged shelter, food, and “chirur-
gians” should be provided at St. Thomas’ Hospital “in
Sowthwarke.”

III. “ Ydell and lustie roges,” men and women alike, must
be consigned to a workhouse.

IV. Lazars must be kept out of the streets on a weekly
pension.

Such, for our purpose, were the principal proposals in their
“ booke,” which was duly delivered and apparently approved
by Edward ; for the nine persons who were the original
members of the Committee immediately increased their
number to thirty, and “ did comonly mete every daie in the
inner Chamber in the Gvildhall ” ; there were many also in
the City who gave the Lord Mayor no rest “ tyll they had
order to proceade & power gyven them to doe all that was
nedefull.” Ridley’s parting word to the Lord Mayor is in
clear accord with all that we find here : “ The Lord wroughte
with thee and gaue thee the consent of thy brethren.” The
constitution of the “ xxxtie brethren ” is worth noticing : six
were Aldermen, of whom two had “passed the chair,” the rest,
citizens nominated by the City — a purely civic body, establish-
ing at the very first the close connection which has always till
now bound together the Corporation and Christ’s Hospital.

Having constituted themselves guardians of the trust,
which as yet involved only a building wherein to shelter
the objects of their care, they proceeded to convince them-

20 ANNALS OF CHRIST'S HOSPITAL

selves and the public of the need of such work as theirs.
In touch with the City and its government, they would make
the City supply the necessary information. “ The Aldermen of
every Warde & the Wardeines of every Companye broughte in
theire reportes severallye of every of the sortes of the poore,”
under the heads of “ ffatherles children” (300) — “sore and
sicke” — “poore men overburdened with theire children” (350)
— “ aged ” — “ decayed householders ” — “ ydell vagabondes.” *
Either John Howes was weak in arithmetic, or there is a
locus spinosus in the manuscript, for the total he gives does
not tally with the details. The figures that concern us are
those given above, and the whole number, according to
Howes, was 2,160, which is not surprisingly large, consider-
ing the motley array of its constituents, but is sufficiently
appalling for all that. Therefore, at the outset of their enter-
prise, they had to sit down and count the cost, the place of
their daily meeting being, as before, “ the inner Chamber in
the Guildhall.” To their everlasting credit, “they fyrste
thoughte good to begynne wth themselves.” According to
their position and ability, they gave each their contribution,
^10 or £20 as the case might be. Two sheriffs’ fines were
also granted, a matter of £200, and the result of the whole
“ presse ” was ^748, “ or there abouts.” After so self-denying
an ordinance they were not ashamed to look further afield,
and a statement of Stow that the inhabitants of the City
were summoned to Church and harangued by Sir Richard
Dobbs and the aldermen almost makes us think that Dean
Stanley’s action in inviting a layman to lecture in West-
minster Abbey was after all not so startling and original.
The nearer and better authority of Howes puts a different
complexion upon the action of our good Governors. They
divided themselves, he tells us, into two companies, called to-
gether “ the preachers mynisters, churche wardeines and syde-
men,” and exhorted them to obtain from their parishioners
“ a francke benevolence and wekely pencion.” They did
better still. If they could not mount the pulpits in propria
persona , at least they meant to be heard by proxy. They

* Howes, Contemporaneous Account, p. II.

IL unites wolpitdtt ncctra itm
"tehat fame kicltacb Bo|)l
Mo careful! 'ffide in pouemm
9Ufo a benefactor aojo , at
^tsljafc pirture fjmir ft is fan
to iaiitatr l]is It citium a it

a a })ftuinge dcoe of ]pitfir ,
fctoas ataufofjnnoft ianiritif
rnt anti fmtherci) moche tl)c fame
$ 3oueti to ice it frame , >->
uc frit, to putt fad •f'ttuo.ltt m mmtr
risers goi) i)atje us airinor .

SIR RICHARD DORRS

FKOM A PHOTOGRAPH UY MR. CHARLES E. BROWNE OF THE PICTURE IN THE
COURT ROOM

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL 21

printed and circulated “a very fyne wittie and learned
oracon,” giving a copy to every minister and preacher the
better to instruct and persvvade the people in every paryshe
to give liberallye,” * and, presumably, the parsons pocketed
their pride and did as they were commanded.

Thus this Tudor “Hospital Sunday” is not without a
suggestion for the management of its modern representative.
Nay, so little have the methods of collecting money changed
or advanced in the last four centuries that “ boxes were
distributed just as now, in which householders might “ gather
of their ghests theire benevolence to that good worcke.’
The City was canvassed in its Companies, the populace was
harangued at “ Pawles Crosse,” and in response to the
canvassing and the preaching “ the worcke was so generally
well lyked ” that money was given freely, a proof not merely
of the popularity of the object, but much more of the need
it was meant to supply. Once more, to mark the public
sense of the necessity of the case, and withal to prove that
in such matters the sixteenth century was well abreast of the
mendicant devices of the twentieth, a slip of paper with
a blank space for the amount of his subscription, or in the
words of the Chronicler, a “ byll prynted wherein there was a
glass wyndowe left open,” was given to each householder to be
filled up.

The upshot of all this effort was so large a contribution
that the Thirty felt justified in going to the Corporation and
in demanding that they should do their part. The City
Fathers, not to be outdone, gave “an hundrethe pownds
and 5011 a yere Lande,” and though the land was afterwards
“tourned over” to St. Thomas’s Hospital, the moral effect
of the gift remains in the close ties that should still bind the
School to the City and the City to the School. The houses
of refuge were more or less ready to their hand. For want
of funds it would appear that the “Grey Friars” had been
put to hardly any use, and at the moment we have reached
was absolutely untenanted, save by “ a nomber of hoores &
roges,” and save that in it “ there laie one Thomas Bryckett,

* Ibid., p. 12.

22 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Vicar of Chrystes churche,” the first incumbent under the
new charter already described. He was not averse to a
bargain ; the Governors “ compounded and boughte all his
tables beadsteads & other things” and so got rid of him.
Then nothing stood between them and the beginning of the
occupation of the buildings on the site that time has made
so famous. Parson Bryckett’s lodging became “ a compting
house & lodging for their clarcke.” The fabric in general
was much out of repair ; it needed a responsible officer
to watch over it, and the money that had been subscribed
called for careful husbandry. It was natural, then, that
“ these xxxtie psons thoughte yt good to make choyce of
Officers.” The first of an able line of Treasurers was
Thomas Roe, or Rowe, afterwards Lord Mayor and Knight,
though it is questionable if he ever assumed the office. It
says something for the continuity of things that the present
Treasurer, if his life is spared, will be Lord Mayor and
has just filled the ancient office of Sheriff. Roe was
succeeded, or perhaps at once replaced, by Richard Grafton,
the “King’s Printer.” Under him and his colleagues the
work got under weigh.

In Howes’ quaint dialogue “Dignitie,” the convenient person
who leads up to all the desirable subjects becomes, after the
long preface, so excited at the hope of being at last allowed
to read the first chapter that, even at the risk of postponing
that pleasure, he demands a list of “ these good Governors.”
The reader may feel interest enough in the matter to be
ready to make a similar sacrifice and to let the honest
chronicler speak for himself : —

‘ Whereuppon the Governo™ meeting at the Gvildhalle
agreed to mete all in the Compting house made for the
Governo™ in Christes Hospitall on the vith daie of October
1552. At wch time and place they mette whose names here-
after followe. Viz.

Aldermen. Sr Martyn Bowes
Sr Andrewe Judde
Sr John Olyve
Mr Jarveis
Mr Hewetts

John Browne
William Chester
Thomas Lodge
Guye Waed
John Blundell

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL 23

Thomas Bartlett
Clement Newce
William Crompton
John Callthroppe
Mr Lonne

Mr Heywarde
Walter Younge
Thomas Ffenton
Henry Ffisher
Jesper Ffisher
Thomas Locke
Mr Essexe
Thomas Eaton

Richarde Hill
George Toedlovve
Thomas Hunte
William Peterson
Edwarde Wythers
John Vickers
Richarde Grafton.’

The most memorable name in the list is that of Richard
Grafton, the first active Treasurer of Christ’s Hospital, to
whose life and work Mr. Kingdon has devoted such fruitful
study. Grafton had behind him, at the moment when Christ’s
Hospital was started, an adventurous career, which there
is no need here to follow in detail. It has already been
mentioned that latterly his work as a printer had been
carried on within the Grey Friars, perhaps within the church
itself. Thus “ the Prymer ” in English and Latin was
“ printed in the House late Graye Freers by Richard Grafton
and Edward Whytchurch.” Mr. Sidney Lee, in the Dictionary
of National Biography, quotes Machyn’s statement that
Grafton was “chief master” of Christ’s Hospital, and men-
tions a suggestion “ that Grafton resided there in an official
capacity.” Of the “official capacity” there is no doubt at
all. Early in the autumn of 1552 he was appointed one of
the “ Surveyors to see the worckes goe forwards,” and on
October 6th he was in the Counting House as one of the
thirty Governors. He became Treasurer in 1553 and served
the office for four years ; but there was no official residence
for the Treasurer at that period, and if Grafton resided in
the Grey Friars, it must have been in the house which he
occupied for the purposes of his business, and for which no
doubt, when the Hospital was properly organised, he paid
rent to himself as its Treasurer.

But the executive functions and the daily supervision

24 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

needed hands and heads less occupied with commercial
duties than those of the Thirty. So again we go to our
chronicler * for a list of the officers chosen. Viz. : —

Wardeine of ye
house

Clarke .

Stewarde

Buttler

Under-buttler .
Cooke .

Porters

Gramer Schoole
Mayster
Gramer Usher

A Teacher to write .

Schoole-Maisters for
the Petties A.B.C.

A schoole-Maister
for Musicke
Chirurgione

Chirurgione

A Barbor

A Taylor

j£i. s. d.

John Vickers [possibly the
Governor of that name]
who had yerelye for his
paines & service a gowne
clothe of . . .2134

John Watson whose fee and

lyverye was . . . 10 O O

William Smoothing whose

fee was yerely . .6134

Thomas Mason whose yerely

fee was . . .6134

William Benne whose yerely

fee was . . .200

Anthonye Ideson whose

yerely fee was . .800

John Saepschead & John
Fforeskeue whose yerely
fee was to eache of them
wth theire lyveryes . .600

John Robynson whose yerely

fee was . . .1500

Jeames Seamer whose yerely

fee was . . .1000

John Watson whose yerely

fee was . . .368

Thomas Lowes and Thomas
Cutts whose yerely fees to
eache of them . .2134

A teacher of Pricksonge

whose yerely fee was . 2 13 4

Robte Ballthroppe whose

yerely fee was . . 13 6 8

Henry Browne whose yerely
fee was . . .400

John Staples whose yerelye

fee was . . .200

Robte Cooke whose yerelye

fee was . . .2134

* Howes, pp. 15, 16.

KING EDWARD VI.

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY MR. CHARLES E. BROWNE OK THE PORTRAIT BY HOLBEIN

IN THE COURT ROOM

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL 25

£i. s. d.

The coale-keper . Trongon Charsley whose

yerelye fee was . .200

The mazon scourer . Thomas Lucas whose yerely

fee was . • . o 10 o

There were allso encreased more Beadelles & theire wages
was allso encreased by reason that theire pains was then
greater then before.

Govemors

Matron

Systers

The Bruer

Mr Vickers whose yerely fee

was . • .168

Agnes Sexton whose yerely
fee was besyde a liverye
and i8d a weke for hir
boorde . . .368

xxvtie and every of them had
yerelye for their severall
fees xls & a lyverey and
xvi pence a weke for theire
boorde wages.

John Wasse had for his
yerelye fee .

The Sextone of Chrystes
churche had for his attend-
ance yerelye . . .100

In this list of the first staff of the Foundation several
points call for comment. At the outset it prepares to deserve
its title of “Hospital” by spending far more on the comfort,
the clothing, the cleanliness of the inmates than upon their
education.* The combined salaries of the C. H. “chirurgiones”
are more than equal to that of the “ Head Master.” The wages
of the Matron and “ Systers,” irrespective of “ theire boorde,”
amount to nearly three times the sum paid to the assistant-
masters. It has sometimes been suggested that Howes’ list
includes the Nurses and officials of St. Thomas’s Hospital
as well as those of Christ’s ; but the Parker manuscript, to be
again referred to, disposes of this idea. It has a similar list,
and mentions forty-four “ Kepers of the same children and

* See Stow, chap. ii. p. 64 : “In the yeere 1553 after the erection of Christ’s
Hospitall ... a schoole was also ordained there.”

26 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

aged people in both the houses,” five surgeons, two stewards,
two butlers, two cooks, two clerks, and two matrons. The
manuscript only lapses into the singular when it comes to the
“ Scole-master ” and the “ ussher,” and the “scolemaster for
wrytinge.” Clearly Christ’s Hospital monopolised the latter,
and had its fair share of the matrons, nurses, “ chirurgiones,”
and the like, as given in the Parker MS.

But, however large its nursing staff, it is perfectly clear
that Christ’s Hospital, within a few months of its start in life,
became a School instead of being the mere Foundling
Hospital that some investigators of the school-systems of the
period would have us believe it. It is true, in a strictly literal
sense, that Christ’s Hospital “was not founded as a Grammar
School, but as a Foundling Hospital.”* Yet, as the found-
lings were brought in during November, 1552, and the
grammar-master and his staff drew their first quarter’s salary
in June, 1553, the interval of Foundlingism, pure and simple,
was short enough. Indeed the original staff, considering that
the first batch of 280 teachable inmates would not all be
boys, and that the girls would fall to the care of the matron,
was by no means small, according to the standard of the
time. The infants came under the “ schoole maisters for the
Petties (or ‘ Petites ’) A.B.C.” who were ultimately merged in
the Writing School, while the rest were taught writing by
John Watson, the Clerk to the Governors. But the most
remarkable item is “the schoole-Maister for Music,” further
described as “a teacher of Pricksonge.” The Music School
will be discussed elsewhere, but the point now is that this so-
called Foundling Hospital at once follows the example of so
many of the Grammar Schools of the time in making pro-
vision for the teaching of music, a duty never neglected by it
to this day. It comes, then, to this, that Christ’s Hospital
starts with a Grammar Master, and an Usher under him, a
Writing Master, and two elementary teachers, a Music Master,
and a Matron to look after the “ mayden-children or a staff
of seven for under three hundred children. As a beginning,
it is not disgraceful, though it is far from adequate, and it
* Leach, English Schools at the Reformation, p. 4.

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL 27

was large enough to justify itself in a very short time. The
first “Blue” who is recorded to have left the Hospital for the
University went to Cambridge by the assistance of the
Governors in 1566, or thirteen years after the foundation;
but the system of record-keeping during that period was so
unsatisfactory that no one can be sure whether John Priest-
man was actually the first or not. The entry to the effect that
“ 1566. June the 15. John Prestman went to the vniuersitie
of Cambrige as in the court Bok fo. 29 ” rather suggests that
it was no unusual event, and, as this happened a dozen years
or so from the beginning of Christ’s Hospital teaching, it is
no great assumption that the course of instruction from the
first was neither better nor worse than that of the ordinary
Grammar Schools of the day. If any discredit attaches to
the Hospital in this connection, it may be stated in terms of
the fact that two centuries later, when there were 516 children
in the London School, the staff consisted of the Upper and
Lower Grammar masters, the Writing School master, the
Mathematical master, the master of the Drawing School, and
the “Musick Master,” together with Upper and Lower Girls’
School mistresses — or a total of eight, to whom it is probably
necessary to add an apprentice or two in the Writing School.
The latter contained in 1769 no less than 263 pupils, while in
the Grammar School, James Boyer, then about thirty-three
years of age, was responsible for the instruction of 129 boys.
Certainly Christ’s Hospital deserved the title of Grammar
School in 1553, more, not less, than it did in 1769. It may
be noted that either the “ Bruer ” brews for sheer love of
brewing, or there is a “lacuna” in the manuscript.

The general appearance of the scheme, then, points to
something between a Free Grammar School and a Foundling
Hospital, which was necessary to clear the streets. The only
functionaries who are too numerous to be numbered are the
“ Beadelles,” and for all they were so many, “ theire pains
was ” likely to be greater yet. Their modern representatives
to-day take life more easily, for there are three centuries of
good discipline at their back, and that running away of the
inmates, which was the plague of the first beadles, has been

28 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

only the occasional excitement of the later ones, till “chasing”
has finally died a natural death.

And so at last we are brought to the actual beginnings of
this “high emprise,” and it would be a day much to be
remembered if we could arrive at the actual date of the first
inmates’ first entry. “ In the month of September,” says
Stow, as enlarged by Strype ; more circumstantial, and
more open to suspicion, is another statement that the children
were taken into the Hospital on the 23rd of November, 1552.
John Howes fails us just when we want him, though he gives
the number admitted to the benefits of the charity ; but he
more than makes up for his want of dates by the vivid
reasons alleged for the great mortality among the children.
A number of them, says he, “being taken from the dunghill
when they came to swete and cleane keping and to a pure
dyett dyed downe righte” ! Three hundred and eighty came
into this haven when it was ready to welcome them, and
though of these a hundred were put out to nurse as mere
infants, there must have been serious difficulty in the early
and inexperienced stage of the management in barring the
entry of those various ailments which young flesh is heir to,
and which three centuries and a half of medical progress
have taught us only to cure and not to prevent.

Several features have already suggested themselves as
connecting the new times with the old, and it should not
be forgotten that the original scheme comprised a system
of pensions. Six hundred “ decayed housholders ” were
“ allso releved wekely.” The adult poor and “ the lustie
roges ” of both sexes, of whom the streets had likewise to
be relieved, were swept into the Hospital in such abundance
that further accommodation had to be provided for them, and
again Ridley is in the forefront of the enterprise. He is
represented as delivering a “ fyne supplicacon ” to the King,
and constituting himself the mouthpiece, not of the Lord
Mayor and the citizens, but of “the myserable sore sicke
and friendless people” to whom, in those days of vigorous
bumbledom, even the streets were no longer open. There is,
besides, his letter to Cecil in May, 1552, with its quaint

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL 29

suggestion that “ Christ should lie no more abroad in the
street” while “a wide, large, empty house of the King’s
Majesty, called Bridewell,” was ready at hand “to lodge
Christ in.” This “ learned oracon ” was delivered in presence
of twelve representatives of the City, including Sir “ Martyn
Boes,” Mr. Peter Blundell, and Mr. Grafton, and it did not
fail of its effect. Bridewell was granted to them, with the
revenues of the Savoy, something over £500 a year, to endow
the foundation, and in the possession of them we may leave
it. But Bridewell’s connection with Christ’s Hospital consists
in something more than a respect for their common Patron
and Founder, and an enjoyment for some years of the
revenues of a common fund. Entries in the first Court Book
(1562-92) show that children were sent, four or five at
a time, to Bridewell to learn a trade, returning to Christ’s
Hospital for their meals ; that small sums were given by our
Governors to Bridewell for taking care of sucklings ; and
that in other cases an arrangement was made for “ Blue ”
children to pay twelve shillings for their abode in Bridewell
eight weeks, and then to remain there free of charge ; besides
which these pages will show that it was not an uncommon
threat in later centuries that disorderly youths would be
packed off to Bridewell for correction.

Meanwhile, as far as Christ’s Hospital itself is concerned,
matters had progressed. In the months that followed their
first entry into the gates the children had become, not only
presentable, but orderly. By Christmas, 1552, they were
ready in their “ livery of russet cotton ” to line “ the proces-
sion of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen to St. Paul’s, from
Lawrence Lane westward.” They were again under the
public eye the following Easter, when they attended the
Spital sermons.

This chapter may fitly close with some reference to the
earliest authentic account which we possess of the work and
financial condition of the Hospital during the first year of
its existence. It is stated to have been drawn up in order to
set before King Edward the latest results of his efforts at the
time when the signing of the charter was imminent or under

30 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

consideration (that is to say, in May or June, 1553). The
copy of it, to which my brother — a fellow of Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge — kindly drew my attention, is in Arch-
bishop Parker’s collection in the splendid library of that
college, and the handwriting bears a close resemblance to
that of the earliest documents at the Hospital, which are
presumably the penmanship of John Watson, the clerk and
writing-master. There is another copy in a different hand
in the British Museum (Harl. MS. No. 604,176), and in each
case there are certain defects in the arithmetic. The chief
points are as follows. The title of the document is, “ A true
and Shorte Declaration of the state and charge of the newe
erectede hospitalles in the citie of London. Anno Dom.
1 5 S3-” First, the finances : “ The whole benevolence graunted
of all the citizens of London towarde the ereccon of the two
houses, that is to say of St. Thomas and Christe Hospitalle,”
amounted to .£2,476. But “ the charges of the ereccon of
those two houses and the furniture of them ” came to
£2,479 ior. 10 d.t leaving a deficit on the original cost of
only £3 ioj. 10 d. Next, the maintenance for the first year,
which came to far more than the capital expenditure. The
“ meate, bread and drynke ” of the five hundred and forty
inmates of the two hospitals came to £1,638 per annum.
“ Novrishinge of one hundred children” in the country “at
xd the weke” cost £216 3 s. 4 d. a year. “ Apparell, . . . that
ys to saye sheates, shertes, cotes, cappes, hosen, showes,
paper bookes, ynke, which some tyme ys more and some
tyme ys lesse,” cost £260. The salaries and board of the
forty-four “kepers” accounted for £117 S-5-- 4<£ on the basis
that “ every keper hath xvid the weke and ii matrones xviiid
the weke.” “ Ffewell, that ys to saie, wode and cole,” cost
£260. Pensions “ to decaied householders in sondrye parishes
in the citie of London” amounted to £468 a year. The
governors also gave £60 a year in subscriptions to "the
Lazer houses adioyninge to the citie of London to the
intente they shall not begge within the same nor within
three myles compasse thereof, except it be at theire owne
door, to the great anoyance of all suche as have frequentede

THE PRESENTATION OF THE CHARTER

FOUNDATION OF THE SCHOOL 31

the citie in the terme time.” Last, the salaries represent
an annual payment of £301 6s. Sd. The total yearly ex-
penditure, for which the Archbishop’s manuscript does not
completely account, is stated to be £ 3,290 5 s'. 4 d. And now
for the devotio civium. “ There ys collectede,” says the
statement, “ by the gefte and free allmes of the citizens ”
£2,914, leaving a deficiency of £3 76 5s. 4 d. Legacies and
donations reduced the debt the first year by £129 15s. Sd,
and the balance of the ordinary expenditure, £246 9 s. 8 d,
“ hath been paid and disbursed by the Governors of the said
houses out of their owne purses, which daylie travayle for
the good order of them.”

This interesting balance-sheet cannot be dismissed without
a word or two. First, it clearly belongs to the end of the
first year’s work, which, as far as Christ’s Hospital is con-
cerned, must make its date somewhere in November, 1553.
Secondly, it is hardly likely to have been prepared for the
satisfaction of Edward VI., who would find from it that any
royal assistance to the finances of the Royal Hospitals was
painfully conspicuous by its absence. And, thirdly, it shows
that practically every penny of the support given came out
of the pockets of living citizens with the exception of the
small sum given, doubtless by citizens, after death.

Such was the beginning of this great enterprise. Land
and buildings “given” by Henry VIII. for one purpose in
1547 were again “given ” by Edward VI. for another purpose
in 1552. If the “gifts” of Kings had been the only gifts,
Christ’s Hospital would never have enjoyed its useful life.
It owed its start, as it has owed its steady continuance in
well-doing, to the generosity of the citizens of London.
But nothing can rob Edward of the lasting fame of having
signed the charter which is still in the Hospital’s possession.

. It is dated “at Westminster the twenty-sixth day of June
in the seventh year of our reign.” It contains the famous
entry, in his own handwriting, that the Governors were to be
allowed to receive land in mortmain or to acquire it to the
value of “ foure thousand marks by the yeare.” The scene
of its signature has been perpetuated in a stiff and inartistic

32 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

picture,* attributed to Holbein, who did not live till the date
in question. But a happier presentment of it is enshrined in
the legend which tells that, as his feeble fingers dropped the
pen, the young King was heard to say, “ Lord, I yield Thee
most hearty thanks that Thou hast given me life thus long to
finish this work to the glory of Thy Name.” Eleven days
later he passed away.

* Mr. C. W. Carey, who has this picture under careful restoration at Horsham,
believes it to be the work of Sir Antonio More.

CHAPTER III.

THE SCHOOL AND ITS CHILDREN

“We were hungry and Thou hast fed us.”

Bishop Compton’s C. H. Prayers.

HE reader, who has had patience with me so far, will

have been able to see that the founding of Christ’s
Hospital was not so much Edward’s project as Henry’s,
and not so much Kings’ work as the City’s ; that it was not
a matter of amateur benevolence, but of economic necessity ;
that Christ’s Hospital was almost from the first a grammar-
school as well as an asylum for foundlings. We know by
this time, thanks to the trenchant investigations of Mr. Leach,
that there was ample supply of good schools in the England
of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and that the educa-
tional fervour of the Tudors is but borrowed plumage. I
have endeavoured in this case to estimate the credit they

It is necessary to make these reservations in order to fend
off any disappointment at the barrenness of the early years’
records. What could they consist of, save entries to the
effect that such a child, his name given him on admission,
had been put out to nurse till he should be seven or eight
years of age and be fit to knock about in the school ? As
long as there were still waifs and strays to be looked after, the
Governors kept their attention fixed on this part of their
duty. Each child, as it first came into their care, meant a
life to be kept going rather than an intellect to be developed.
But already, In the Poor Law legislation, a movement was
afoot which tended to make the foundling work of Christ’s
Hospital ultimately superfluous and to leave the way clear

deserve.

34 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

for the work of the schoolmaster. If our Parish registers
start mostly with the year 1538, it is because Crumwell had
the foresight to see what the dissolution of the monasteries
would mean to the poor ; and so, at his instigation, Henry
had arranged to throw the burden of pauperism on the well-
to-do in each parish. It only shows how slowly the com-
munity learns wisdom, that this Act (27 Henry VIII.) orders
“that no person shall give any money in alms, but to the
common boxes or common gatherings in every parish, upon
pain to forfeit ten times as much as shall be given.” More-
over, the contents of these “ common boxes or common
gatherings ” of the City parishes passed by common consent
into the coffers of Christ’s Hospital, as being the acknow-
ledged means of caring for the young paupers. In 1563,
ten years after the doors were opened, twenty-eight parish
boxes contained only 13J. 4 d., as against £24 6s. 3 d.

from twenty-three wards in the year before, and there was
clearly a tightness about the charity money-market. So it
is not surprising to find that in 1 562, the former of the two
years of which we are able to give the figures, Elizabeth
should have set her seal to a stringent Act (5 Eliz. c. 3).
It ordains that the poor and impotent of every parish
shall be relieved of that which every person will “of their
charity” give weekly. None of them shall openly go and
sit begging ; and if any parishioner shall refuse to pay
reasonably toward the relief of the poor, or discourage
others, the justices of the peace may tax him in a reasonable
weekly sum, and if he refuse to pay it they may commit him
to prison.

How is it that, in spite of this Act, there are constant
complaints in the Counting-House of the Hospital that the
sums due in respect of waifs received have not been paid ?
Times of outward prosperity like the reign of Elizabeth are
always pervaded by a certain leaven of improvidence, and
the number of foundlings was not likely to diminish because
there was now a definite home for them. All we can do
in the shape of answer is to give instances of the way in
which the City made use of the Hospital, and then add,

THE SCHOOL AND ITS CHILDREN 35

as bearing upon the same point, various details as to the
age at which children were admitted.

It is curious that the first proof of the admission of a
foundling should come from an outside source, namely the
City archives.* It bears date “ 13 Sept. 1 & 2 Philip and
Mary,” i.e. A.D. 1554.

At this Court it was agreed that “the yonge Tenter
infant ” laid in the church porch of Saint Pancras,f “ as Alex.
Merynge, Mercer, and others, informed the Court here this
day,” shall be received into “ Xristes hospytall wthin Newgate
and theire nerysshed op at the Cyties chargies.”

Another entry in December of the same year records a
like order in regard to a “ poore yonge mayden chylde,” which
was being kept “ in bethelem where it was borne.”

The same system of making the original buildings a refuge
for destitute infants is attested by items in the Court Minutes
of the Hospital, only at a rather later date ; £.JT. “1557. May 10.
It was also graunted that a woman chylde about thage of
half a yere left on Mr. Gunter’s Stall in Cornehill and by him
kepte sythence Candlemas even shuld also be admitted.” Or
again, still later, when the economic arrangements must have
been fairly stereotyped, we come upon the following: 1571
[day not given]. John Ratfford, a sick and poor infant of four
years, was taken in and admitted, because the mother “was
all comfortlesse and wthoute howse or anie other comphert.”
But though we have no definite mention of many such
admissions, the system is amply borne out by the figures. I
have before me a list of seventy children received in the
following year, A.D. 1572. Their ages range from fourteen
days to fifteen years, and the result of further analysis is
quite conclusive. Eleven were over nine years old, eight
were between six and nine, fifteen were between three and
six, no less than thirty-six, or more than half, were
three years old and under, and of these latter twenty-
three, or roughly two-thirds, were infants of between
twelve months and two weeks. Nor was this mercy to the

Repertory 13, fol. 197 b.

f Doubtless “ S. Pancras, Soper Lane,” now united with “ S. Mary-le-bow.”

36 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

helplessly young a mere passing whim or a momentary
necessity of the case. The Hospital accomplished its first
century of work under Oliver Cromwell in 1653, and the
admissions of that year numbered two hundred and twenty.
The proportions, it is true, are a good deal changed, but the
infants are still there. Of the two hundred and twenty, one
hundred and twenty-three are under six years old, but one
hundred and seventeen of these are over three. There are
still three children on the list of less than twelve months.
Evidently the foundling business was not so brisk in New-
gate Street under the Protector as it had been a hundred
years before, and the various regulations of the Court help
us to see how it was gradually modified. But, before we
leave this early feature of the work, it will be well to say
how the Plospital discharged its obligations to this bundle
of young life, male and female. Certainly, under whatever
difficulties, education played its part in the life of the insti-
tution, though it cannot have been easy to systematise a
curriculum for the multitudinous needs of girls and boys
whose ages varied between fourteen years and fourteen days.
How was it all managed ?

We take a glance first at the charge given in 1556 to
the Under - treasurer, who seems to correspond roughly
to the modern Steward, inasmuch as his “office is first
and before all other things to take an Inventory of all the
Bedds, Shetes, Shirtes, Smocks, Hosen, Showes, clothe bothe
woollen and Lynnen, blanquetts, bolsters, pillowes, stocke-
bedds, Mattresses, paddes of strawe, couletts, bedsteades,
cupbourdes, presses, lockes, keyes, potts, Cawdrons, pannes,
platters, dysshes.” True, he had some power of spending
money in “ petty cash,” but it was done under strict super-
vision, for he is told he is not to lay out any sums without
having “the handes” of six or more governors to warrant
him, and “ if ye do ye shall have none allowance for the
same.” So he probably did not. But his relation to the
infant foundlings becomes clear when we read that he is
to “cause a speciall daye of viewe to be had of all the
children that are at the charge of Christes Hospitall either

THE SCHOOL AND ITS CHILDREN 37

at the fyndinge of the house, or at nurse in the countrie,
or succoured by pensions given to certeyne psons for the
fyndinge of them.”

The charge of the same date to the Governors deals with
the numbers to be thus benefited ; namely, “ of Sucklings to
be comitted to nurse not above CL11 and of children to be
admitted in to the house to lodginge and learninge not above
CCL4'.” These figures differ slightly from those recorded in
the Parker manuscript already referred to in the preceding
chapter, which shows that in the first year of work there
were “ daylye Lodged and ffed in Christes hospitall cclxxx
children,” while there were then only one hundred children
“ in the cuntrey for nourssinge,” at the rate of “ xd the weke.”
Three years had certainly added to the numbers of both, and
the Governors of 1556 are ordered to work down gradually
to the regulation figures of two hundred and fifty scholars
and one hundred and fifty nurslings.

The difficulty of organising the education of so mixed a
multitude has already been noticed. Let it be at once said
to the credit of the Governors that they made a brave
attempt. John Howes’ list of the first Staff is fully supported
by the Parker MS. just referred to. John Robynson, the
first Headmaster, had the help of assistants in looking after
the small children. Howes calls them “ schoole-Maisters for
the Petties A.B.C.”; the“ true and shorte declaration” pre-
serves their name as given in the first Account-book, where
they are called “ Skolemasters for the petites,” and where
their first quarter’s stipend, at the rate of “ liii. s. iiii. d. yearly,”
is recorded to have been paid them in June, 1553. The
popular agitator, who says that the Foundation has been
abused for centuries and diverted from its first purpose, fixes
upon this care for foundlings, and asks what the Hospital is
doing now for the “ petites.” He sees from the admission
figures that there is a falling off in the number of foundlings
from the first year of which we have full details, viz. a.d.
DSb, onwards, and he forgets, first, that the development of
Poor Law and of Parish Schools made such work on the part
of Christ’s Hospital more and more superfluous ; and he will

38 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

not see, secondly, that if the system had been continued it
could only have been abused. The world is three centuries
and a half older since then, but still there are hundreds of
cases yearly in every poor quarter of London, where parents
neglect their children and take any and every means of
ridding themselves of them. So, without doubt, it was then.
Babies were brought to the Lodge gate or left inside in the
cloisters, until the place where they wanted to dwell was too
strait for them, and the Governors had to refuse to receive
any more. But an infant “ about thage of half a yere” could
not convey itself home for two very good reasons, one of
which was that it had no home to go to. Lying outside the
gate of Christ’s Hospital, it was in the parish of Christ
Church, and became chargeable to the Parishioners. They
were doubtless as good-hearted folks then as their successors
are now, but they soon found the foundling system some-
thing beyond a joke, and the Governors were bound to
reconsider their position in the matter, and to see, regardless
of the modern agitator, that their greatest usefulness would
not lie that way.

But the agitator, to be consistent, must go further. There
were other ways in which the Christ’s Hospital of the first
days put itself at the public service, but which it has had to
leave to others to pursue. The first of these concerned the
lepers and is of historical aptness. For, as everyone knows,
S. Francis and his followers, who were our predecessors in
this place, paid great heed to the lepers, and there are relics
up and down the country of Lazar-houses * that they built
and served. Therefore it was meet and right that the
Governors should take the duty upon them. On the 24th of
September, 1552, when the buildings were not yet ready for
occupation, an order of the Court was passed for the payment
of six shillings and eightpence a month for each poor person
sent to “ the vi Lazerhowses adioyninge to the Citie for the
herbouringe of the poore.” Each house had its keeper and
each received five shillings a quarter, and the Account Book
shows that £60 was expended in this way in A.D. 1553.

e.g. at Bury St. Edmunds, Dunwich, etc.

THE LODGE, CHRIST CHURCH PASSAGE

FKOM A PHOTOGRAPH LENT BY THE LONDON AND MIDDLESEX A RCI GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

THE SCHOOL AND ITS CHILDREN 39

Four years later, in the same month of September, there was
“paid to the Lazars the sayde monethe,” £\2 15^. 4 d., which
was more than twice the cost for one month in 1553. There-
fore it was quite natural that in August, 1557, the Court
should decide to leave these Lazar payments to the proper
authority ; henceforth they must come “ out of the reue-
newes” of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital.

In the second place it is clear that the term Hospital was
deemed by Governors and sufferers alike to be of elastic
interpretation. A great City merchant, whose premises are
a few yards’ distance from Newgate Street, asked me some
years ago what I was doing, and I was proud to be able to
answer that I was working at Christ’s Hospital. But it was
somewhat humiliating to find him continuing the conversa-
tion on the assumption that I must be a medical student.
Yet in the sixteenth century he might have found reasons for
his mistake. Christ’s Hospital to-day has one medical officer
and thirty masters, but in 1553 there were two surgeons as
well as a not inadequate staff of masters. And the Court
Book shows that the Governors were willing to give all
manner of medical assistance. In 1559 a boy, "being almost
blynde, at the sute of his mother was admitted.” Another
out of St. Sepulchre s parish, “ beinge lame on one legge, was
admitted for surgerye,” and the parents undertook to have
him home as soon as he was well. A young woman came
into the City “ verie sickly,” in A.D. 1571, and, in consideration
of her weakness, “ it is agred that she shall remain in the
sick ward for a tyme.” Even when people had already
enjoyed the benefit of education in the Hospital, they some-
times returned to it for various reasons; for example, one
William Jackson, who had been apprenticed by the Governors
to a packthred maker in Barmondsaie.” He was seized in
*579 with “the falling sycknes,” and was in consequence
taken again in to this howse.” Add to this that there was
a regular system of outdoor relief to the sick. Thus, a
woman named “Jone Cole,” sometime “of Calice,” but now
in the Vintry, receives half a crown “towarde the healinge of
hir childes arme named Tobias beinge broken.” A butcher

40 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

in Long Lane receives “duringe his sicknes iiii d weklye.”
Nor was it bodily ailments only with which the Foundation
concerned itself. In 1571 Katherine Moliner, of St. Mildred’s,
Bread Street, who is described sufficiently as “ an Idell
p[er]sone,” is admitted to the House for a month “ to exersies
hir self,” and we may hope that the parish collector, when
according to promise he removed her at the end of that time,
was able to notice some improvement in her manners.
Lastly, when it was not found possible to admit cases, the
Governors were ready not only to pay for their keep but to
provide them with raiment ; thus a householder in “ pater
noster Row,” who already receives “ vi d wekly ” towards the
“ finding” of a poor boy, is granted “a Jerkyn and a paire of
Slopps of graie frese and a paire of hose and sheues " for the
boy’s use.

Now no one can contemplate these manifold activities
without seeing in them an attempt to ease the present distress,
wherever it might pinch, without making any resolution to do
so in perpetuity. The Franciscans had done as much, and
more, while their day lasted ; and as long as they had the
means, the Franciscans’ successors were ready to do good
unto all men. But from the beginning they were determined
to proceed upon a definite system, expecting each charitable
foundation to stick to its proper work. The “Order” of 1 5 56
lays it down that no child shall be admitted without a written
certificate from the Vestry of its parish, signed by the Aider-
men and “vi of the auncients of the same parishe at the
least,” stating that the child “ was there borne in lawful
matrimonie.” From this, as we have seen, there were constant
deviations during the first thirty years, but the “Order”
expressly allows them “where losse of life and perishing
would presently follow.” But these extraordinary admissions
should not blind us to the definite purpose already accepted
and acted on, that the Hospital should be a school for the
poor by misfortune ; that at the end of their term some should
be “put forth to service” with freemen of the City, who
would keep a fatherly eye on them ; and that, on the other
hand, such of the children “ as be pregnant and very apt to

THE SCHOOL AND ITS CHILDREN 41

learning be reserved and kept in the grammar school in hope
of preferment to the universitie.”

It may be well at this point to add extracts from the
Hospital books upon these points. First comes a series of
regulations tending to restrict the clientele.

February 17th , 1607. — ‘ It is also ordered that, according to
the auncient orders of this house, from henceforth no forreiners
childe, borne wthout the liberties of this Citty, nor any others
though their parents bee free of this Cittie, being borne with-
out the said Liberties, shalbee admitted children of this house,
except it bee upon very great consideration.’

June 4th, 1624. — ‘ It is further ordered at this Court that
from henceforth noe Child or Children under the age of 4
years shalbee Admitted from any great Parsonage by letter
or otherwise, except the same bee the child of a free man
of London and borne wthin the said Citie.’

March 24 th, 1640. — ‘ It is ordered by the generall Consent
of this Court that no Child or Children shall be admitted
into this house at the suite of any parishe or person what-
soever, except it bee of the age of 3 j vers or more!

March 14th, 1652. — ‘It was ordered by this corfc yl no
children should be taken in but such as bee freemans children
nor any one that have one in already wthout order of this
corV

April 6th, 1655. — ‘And for ye tyme to come this Court
Ordered that no Child shall be admitted. . . . Lame or other
ways infirme in ye body , unless some speciall reasons be
shewed for ye same.’

Finally, there is a much longer and more systematic Order
of the Court, dated March 20th, 1673—4, which embodies
all the above regulations, save where it still further narrows
the limit of age : —

‘ 3. That noe children be taken in under the age of seaven
yeares!

But this particular Order is also remarkable for its mention
of two matters — then comparatively new, but now long
familiar. One is the admission of children in accordance
with the will of a Donor or Benefactor. The other is the

42 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

annexe in the country, and the rule is worth quoting as it
stands : —

‘ That all children that hereafter shalbe admitted, if there
be not roome in this Hosp1 to receive them, then shall be sent
to nurse at Hartford or Ware, where there are Schoole
Masters to teach and instruct them, and not permitted to
stay in London with their parents or others, who may suffer
the said Children to runn up and downe streetes in this Citty,
dirty and nasty, to the great discredit of this Hospital.’

The instances already cited point to the admission of
children being granted mainly at the suit and on the responsi-
bility of the various City parishes, and this parochial right to
“ present ” a child survived, as, for instance, in the case of my
own parish and several others, till the present scheme came into
operation. Thus two systems of admission operated side by
side ; children came in at the request of a parish or at the
request of a person. But, as time went on, the tendency was
for the person to have more right to “present," and the parish
correspondingly less. This appears incidentally in a reference
dated March 24th, 1640, which falls within a period of ten
years (1636-46), during which admissions and resources were
alike scarce, and the country was too full of political cares to
have leisure or money for philanthropic purposes. “ No
child,” it says, “shall bee admitted into this house at the
suit of any parish or person whatsoever, except it bee of the
age of three years or more ” ; and another of the same period
gives the prevalent reason — “in respecte of the greate number
already chargeable to the house and the want of meanes
to maintain them.”

It was chiefly at the Restoration that the individual
began to assert himself at the expense of the City parishes,
and in 1678 the rule that the children admitted must be
actually living within the City was abolished. The system
of the time was roughly this. Every March a balance-sheet
was presented, together with “ the state of the house,” that
is to say, the number of children calculated to be in the
school at the approaching Easter. The Court then decided
how many vacancies they could declare, and one hundred

THE SCHOOL AND ITS CHILDREN 43

may be taken as a representative figure. Thereupon the
Court drew up a list of this sort. The Lord Mayor would
have 2 presentations, the Aldermen and the Recorder 26 ,
the Governors, whose names were taken alphabetically, 58)
and benefactors, 14. It was their frequent custom to “oblige”
the parish of Christ Church with a presentation, and some-
times (as in 1717, “in regard to his readiness to serve this
House on all occasions”) the Treasurer of St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital got a similar privilege. Presentations were also
placed from time to time at the disposal of persons of dis-
tinction. Thus in 1702 the Earl of Rochester had been
allowed to put in a boy, who was not qualified because “ he
is not fully seven yeares old and hath a brother already in
the House ” ; but the Court overlooked this “ in respect to
that noble lord,” and the Treasurer was sent to him to say
that the Court “ hath gratified his honour.” The “ brother
already in the House” shortly afterwards eased the con-
sciences of the Governors by running away. In the same
way the Court in 1731, hearing that “a Presentation . . .
would be very acceptable to the Right Honble. Sr Robert
Walpole,” unanimously agreed to “gratify” the great man
by admitting a poor child in whom he was interested.

The nominations once given, certain rules had to be com-
plied with, which, however, varied from time to time. Children
must not be “ crooked nor diseased,” not “ laime or otherwise
blemished in their boddies or limes.” They must be “ want-
ing either a ffather or a mother,” in which case (so says a
regulation of 1723) “a certificate or affidavit of the Buryal
of one of them shall be produced.” Supposing that these
essentials were complied with, we may see the subsequent
proceedings in an order issued to the Aldermen in 1674 :
“When your Worp. hath made choice of such a child, pray
lett either the ffather, mother, or friend thereof come to the
Compting House of Christ’s Hospitall with note and your
Worp’s name subscribed thereunto on Monday and Tuesday
the 6th & 7th days of A prill 1674, & the ffather mother or
friend thereof shall know the certaine time when the said
child shall be received into the care and charge of the said

44 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Hospitall.” Of course it sometimes happened that “the
certaine time” was long in arriving. The number of inmates,
as the Governors said to Charles II. in 1664, “doth either
increase or decrease as God is pleased to move the hearts
of good Christians to contribute towards their reliefe ” ; in
other words, the Court might not be able to afford to admit
an accepted child. Or the London School might be already
crowded, because, as in 1720, there were “eighty children of
age fitting to come out of the country,” who would be pre-
ferred as being already on the foundation. In these circum-
stances, it was a not uncommon practice to arrange that
qualified children, for whom there was as yet no room, should
“ remain with their friends upon the House pay untill further
order."

It will suffice to add that the admission system of the
seventeenth century contains in germ all that the Commis-
sioners of 1837 found in existence. They arranged the
children under three heads : —

i. Those presented by privileged Governors (i.e. the Presi-

dent, the Treasurer, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen)
and by other Governors in rotation as they stood on
the list.

ii. Those presented by Governors under occasional pre-

sentations.

iii. Those presented by parishes, City guilds, or individuals

under special gifts.

And so it continued till after many Commissions the
Hospital came under the scheme of 1891, which must be
considered in a separate chapter.

THE GIFFS CLOISTER

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH LENT BY THE LONDON AND MIDDLESEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

CHAPTER IV.

THE SCHOOL’S BUILDINGS
“Adieu, adieu ! ye much-loved cloisters pale 1" — Coleridge.

THE casual visitor, anxious to include a look at Christ’s
Hospital in his inspection of the “ antiquities ” of
London, is apt to find his visit of great interest, if it happens
during term time, but is generally inclined to say that he
missed the antiquities. The Newgate Street gateway shows
him a fine Tudor building, suggestive of “King’s” and of
Eton, but a closer inspection reveals that the date of the
opening of the Hall is 1829, and a look at the back of it is
enough to convince him that the Tudors had no hand in it.
He passes up Christ Church Passage and is rewarded with
a glimpse of red-brick work that has no superior in the City,
but he guesses that he is in front of a building erected under
the later Stuarts. He enters the Lodge and finds himself
in a quadrangle, whose only suggestion of antiquity is its
shape, and his cicerone draws his attention to the south side
of the square, which consists of a cloister, whose level is
some feet lower than the rest. It is lined with brick and
faced with brick, but between the outer and the inner lining
he can see that there is the stonework of pointed arches.
Its roof on close examination proves a grievous fraud. It is
known as “ The Gififs,” a name which no one would hesitate
to derive from the initials of “ Grey fTriars,” if it were not
that “ Blues ” of forty or fifty years back persist in main-
taining that the eponymous hero of the cloister is one
G. I. Fuller, who in their time had been beadle for many
years at the Christ Church lodge. But it has been elsewhere
explained that the plot of ground at the east end of the

46 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Cloister went for more than two centuries by the name of
“ The Grey Friars,” and to this plot the cloister gave access,
thus obtaining the name of “the Grey Friars Cloister,”
which any schoolboy would shorten into “the G. Fs.,” and so
to “ the Giffs.” Fuller’s initials or Fuller’s colloquialisms are
a poor modern substitute for an explanation that takes us
back to the days of Richard Grafton, who, with others who
rented houses within the grounds, must have used the cloister
daily to get to his front door. That cloister, we must be
content to know, is all that is really old in Christ’s Hospital,
for it can probably number six centuries, and the only
contemporary structures in the immediate neighbourhood are
the hidden piers of masonry upon which Christ Church rises,
one of which was disclosed in the recent construction of the
station for the Central London Railway.

But, if the visitor will be content to imagine himself three
centuries and a half away, it is not hard to convince him that
the present buildings are the obvious successors of those
which in Edward VI.’s time were handed over to the
Governors for the use of the poor children of the City. A
glance at a very ancient plan of the Grey Friars, which is
kept in the Counting House, will show him that he must
eliminate everything north of the Middle Cloister, at least
for the time being. The original site was roughly A-shaped,
with its apex westward opposite St. Sepulchre’s Church, and
its base eastward, along what is now King Edward Street,
and was then Foul or Stinking Lane. The southern arm of
the angle consisted almost entirely of the Church of the
Grey Friars, 300 feet in length ; the northern arm was
formed by the City Wall. In order to show how completely
the original site was shut in on the north, with none of the
ground on which the Writing School, the Warden’s Lodge,
and the Grammar School now stand, it is only necessary
to remember that immediately on the north side of the City
Wall ran the Town Ditch. In 1552 it was merely an open
sewer, and it is easy to imagine the general unsavouri-
ness of this triangle whose base was Stinking Lane, whose
south side was the Shambles, and whose north side was the

THE SCHOOL’S BUILDINGS

open cloaca of the City. It required no great flight of genius
to decide that the Ditch must be covered, if the children were
to be kept alive, and this was done at the expense of John
Calthrop,* citizen and draper, from Aldersgate to Newgate,
and part of this surface over the Town Ditch was leased to
the Hospital by the Corporation in 1553 at a “peppercorn”
of twelve pence a year. Of the date at which the City Wall
was levelled I have found no record, but its course through
the Hospital is easily determinable. A portion of it lies
under the newest buildings of the General Post Office ; it
passed under the Lodge at the Ditch gates, slanted south-
westward, so as to run under or just to the north of the great
tower which now gives entrance to the Writing School, and
so traversed the “ Hall-Play” past the Gymnasium, till it met
the “ New Gate,” at the end of Newgate Street. When
once it was levelled, the Hospital was free to stretch its
limbs northward, and the land which the school has so long
occupied between the Wall and the confines of St. Bartholo-
mew’s Hospital is only freehold in so far as it is held at a
rental of £10 on two leases from the Corporation which expire
in A.D. 2691 — which is sufficient for all practical purposes.

But it was well on in the seventeenth century before this
northern portion was occupied for school purposes. Houses
were built there, whose rents swelled the revenues, and this
was done from the very beginning. Thus it was agreed on
the last of January, 1558, that “thalf of the greate garden
within the Towne Ditch shulde be let out for money and
thother half to be reserved to thuse of this house.” Probably
the first use made of the Ditch was for the erection of the
Treasurer’s house (subsequently destroyed in the Fire). This
project was started in 1648, and it was understood that the
Committee should not “be tied to the just sum of £450
but before it was finished in June, 1649, the builder reported
that he had spent ^783, and was afraid of imprisonment if
he did not see his money at once. The Committee made
a proposal to him for the payment of a certain sum on
condition that there was “ a fynall end of ye business ” and

* One of “The Thirty” (p. 23).

48 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

“noe more controversie or question.” It was not the last
case in the school’s history of “ estimates ” being exceeded.

Across the Ditch from south to north ran a passage, still
represented by a closed door, between the school and “ Barts,”
and it was natural that “ beggars and vagrants ” should
imagine that between the two charitable foundations they
stood some chance of relief; so that in 1637 it was neces-
sary to give special instructions to our beadles to expel
them “as far as our part extends.” In the other direction,
from east to west, the Ditch was traversed by the “ Long
Walk,” which is sometimes described in the Minutes as “ the
Common Way or passage.” Whatever the course it pursued
after entering the Little Britain gates, it was the main artery
of traffic within the Hospital, and it also communicated with
St. Bartholomew’s ; indeed the Christ Church Vestry-book
describes it as “ ye walke between ” the two hospitals. Most
of the shops, elsewhere referred to, fronted on the Long
Walk, and special mention is made in 1738 of a “little shop
near the Writing School,” and near the passage leading to
“Barts.” It had been leased to a milliner at £15 a year, but
was then let to another of the same trade who offered to
pay £ 21 . These shopkeepers and other inhabitants were of
course affected by any change of regulation in the Hospital.
For instance, in 1713 there was “a Peticon of divers persons
inhabitants in the Long walk part of Little Britain and St.
Barthews Cloysters touching the early shuting of the severall
gates of this Hospitall to the prejudice of their Trade.” The
Committee “ thought fit to reject the same,” but, as there was
then no carriage-way between Butcher Hall Lane and Little
Britain, it may be owned that the petitioners had some cause
of complaint. The impression one has of the Ditch and its
immediate surroundings two centuries ago is that they entered
very little into the life of the school, as such, though they
were part of its property.

The real scene of school-life must have been in the
Cloisters, the “ Garden ” embraced by them, and in the then
thickly covered ground now represented by the Hall Play.
In the “Garden,” as now, was the pump, but not, as now, in

THE SCHOOL’S BUILDINGS

the centre. Its actual position was almost in Sixes corner.
It is mentioned in 1646 that one of the favourite places for
the “laying” of foundlings was “above yc well-yard staires
in ye passage goeing into ye seuerall wards,” which implies
that there was a “ Sixes ” staircase in that corner, if not on
the exact site of the present one. Certainly the great dormi-
tory of the Friars ran along the east side of the cloisters,
and that side has had “ wards ” above it practically for over
seven centuries. The habitation of the “ Mayden children ”
was on the south side of the quadrangle, over the “Giffs”
cloister, and consisted of what the Franciscans had called
their “ lesser dortor.” In the same neighbourhood were the
Wardrobe, the Matron’s House, and the “ cutting-room.”
The latter is specially mentioned in an order of July 1715
that, “ whereas the doore of the Girles School going up to
Christ Church gate is by experience found to be very ill
convenient,” it is to be “ stoped up ” and a new one made
into the school through “ the cutting-room.” The entry does
not give us any very definite topographical help, but it is
easy to guess that the girls were at times employed in the
room. The present “ shoe-room ” and the architect’s offices
were no doubt used as lodgings for assistant masters or
beadles, there being in earlier days no vast social distinction
between the two classes. In 1762 Robert Court, a junior
clerk in the Counting House, was allotted “ the Room in the
Cloyster ” at that time occupied by the Apothecary, who
had no objection to vacating it on being offered “ a con-
venient Appartment ” in the Infirmary. But three years
later Court complained “ that the Room he now enjoys in the
Cloysters for want of a constant Fire which he cannot keep
on account of his attendance at the office being exceedingly
damp, is very injurious to his health ” ; whereupon they
assigned him “ the small house ” lately occupied by the
Under Girls’ School Mistress. Taking the “Giffs” as repre-
sentative of the other three Cloisters, we may conclude that
each of them gave access to buildings on the ground floor,
though little is on record about these till a committee was
specially appointed to deal with the ruinous state of the

50 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

cloisters in 1714. Two years later this body gave orders,
“ upon view of the severall doors coming into the Cloysters,”
that “these following be continued and raised (viz1) the Hall
Door, the Grammar School door, the Wardrobe Door, the
Door of the Girles School, Mr. Crews and Mr. Dittons
Doors.” Of these the Wardrobe and Girls’ School doors
gave on to the “ Gifts,” the Hall and probably the Grammar
School on to the west cloister. The whereabouts of Mr.
Crew, the Grammar School usher, and Mr. Ditton, the master
of Mr. Stone’s Mathematical boys, must be left to the
imagination. The only certainty about the matter is that
no master was allowed to live in an apartment that com-
municated with his class-room or school. The Committee
were much too knowing for that.

Before leaving the cloisters, it will be well to notice that
their ruinous condition is again and again referred to in the
records. One such reference in 1664 will be found in our
account of the Fire. The first sub-committee to deal with
the problem was appointed in 1669, being “desired to view
the Arches in the Cloysters which are in very great danger of
falling and to secure them as they shall be advised.” “ Esq
Morris” (the friend of Sir Robert Clayton), whose portrait
hangs in the Court Room, gave £100 for this purpose in
1670; but apparently the earnest appeal of Erasmus Smith
that attention should be given to the schools rather than the
cloisters caused little to be done at this time. We will return
to him later, and keep now to the cloisters. In 1705 they
were again inspected by Sir Anthony Deane, and “ he with
the workmen having searched the floor over the North
Cloister” was of opinion that “if the walls were scrued up
with chaines of iron to prevent them from swelling out, the
said walls, with the building over them, may stand many
yeares.” The reason for special care of the North Cloister
was that the building over it was Whittington’s Library, then
nearly three centuries old, though, from the scanty reference
to anything in the way of a Library in the Minutes, I doubt
whether it still served its original purpose; certainly in
Trollope’s day it had long been used to provide dormitories.

c/?

-2

C/)

U«

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY THE RKV. D. F. HEYWOOD

THE SCHOOL’S BUILDINGS 51

Then they looked at the East Cloister by the Counting
House, and recommended that the “ old ward ’ {i.e. the
Greater Dortor of the Franciscans) should be “ taken down
as low as that was which is now the Girles ward, or as farr
as shall be found needfull, And then the Arches to be made
secure for bearing the walls ” ; the new ward to be built over
this cloister was to be “ of about fourteen foot storey or as
high as conveniently may be without prejudice to the lights
behind.” The wall in question received in 1707 an inscrip-
tion to the effect that it was “ rebuilt at the sole charge of
Sr ffrancis Child sometime Lord Maior and now President
of this Hospitall. Anno Dom. 1705.” Again in 1708 it
was under notice that “the Cloysters are in a very ruinous
and bad condition, some part being almost ready to drop
down,” and a public subscription was invited to meet the
expense. But more came out of the efforts of the special
committee, already referred to, of 1714- They repaired “the
foundations of ffive buttresses on the North side and the
Caps of all the buttresses on that side.” Two years later
they seem to have brought all the cloisters to the appearance
which the “ Giffs ” now presents. There were “ iron Raills
to be set up round the cloysters.” The pavements were all
relaid, “ to begin with the East Cloyster from the Church
gate to the passage leading up by the Pump into the Town
Ditch.” The arches were all “reduced,” and in each arch
“there shall be nine Iron barrs to be sett Arras fashion,
each barr to be an inch thick and ffive foot high, the Rail
barr not to exceed half an inch in thickness and two inches
and a half in breadth.” This is of course the railing as so
long familiar in the “Giffs.” In 1716, “the middle Arch in
the Passage comeing in at the Gray ffryars \i.e. the “ Hall-
Play”] gate to the Cloysters” was “pulled down and a girder
of Timber put up in its stead”; this would mean the arch
at the west end of the “ Giffs ” and would be the scene of

imost of the passenger traffic from Newgate to Little Britain.
It has been said elsewhere that, though the Great Cloister
was spared by the Fire, the accommodation in the School
was greatly reduced, especially eastward of the East Cloister.

52 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

It was there that the rebuilding began. In 1668 there was
a resolution passed “ that all the old walls att the East End
of this Hospital, where the Treasurer’s House, the Compting
House, the Clerke’s House, and the other houses stood,
should be taken down forthwith and the ground cleared
. . . that the compting house should be on the ground floor,
and the Court Roome over itt, which are to be in length
44 foote and in breadth 29 foote. The Treasurer’s house
to be upon parte of the ground on which it formerly stood.
. . . That all the officers houses should be built in one range
togeather.” The work was begun the same summer,* and
in the following January they were in a position to estimate
the cost of the Counting House, Court Room, and Staircase
at ^901 3^. 2d., including £ 20 for a “ marble mantle and
marble base” for the Court Room fireplace. Whether the
Court Room then took on all its present beautiful appear-
ance inside I am unable to say ; certainly some of it may
well be due to “a gentleman who was well disposed to this
House,” and who in 1727 had “communicated his intention
of beautifieing the Court Roome in a manner as he thought
might be agreeable to the Governors.”

But there were some friends of the Foundation, and a
certain Mr. Erasmus Smith was foremost among them, who
felt that the Counting House, spite of all the charitable
work that it conducted for the good of all parts of the
country, was still not the real object for which the School
existed. His generous design for the rebuilding of the
Hospital was first mentioned in November 1670, and in the
November following he gave £500 towards the same object;
but it is not till his letter of October 1672 that we are able
to see what he really meant. “The great intendment of
this happy foundacon” — so he wrote to the Governors —
“ was not onely the sustaining poore children with food and
raiment, but more principally theire discipline and education
in piety and good literature, such as their indigent condicon
would not afford them at home and elsewhere. . . . These

* Trollope’s date, 1680 (p. 341), is thus wrong. The Counting-House was
enlarged in 1788.

THE SCHOOL’S BUILDINGS

children are scattered wee scarce knew where to the number
of 140, and have noe other benefitt of this great charyty
but to be kept alive, which the comon charity of each
Parish would have done if this Hospitall had never been
founded. Their fittest age and season for Educacon for
ought wee know is likely hereby to be lost, or, which is
worse, leavened with all manner of rudeness and roguery
by those with whom they are suffered to converse. This
must needs be scandalous and derogate much from the
care and creditt of our government. Neither can itt be
hid from any man beholding the buildings erected in this
Hospitall since the unhappy fire not onely supplying the
necessity but the commodiousness of our meanest servants,
and yett the Habitacons of these Children (who are indeed
the reall proprietors of this Revenew and Charity) suffered
by us to lie neglected in Rubbish and Ashes.” This strong
appeal and rather serious indictment, to which no reply
was forthcoming, seems to have affected the meeting at
which it was read. Erasmus Smith added £50 to his
previous gifts, and £ 200 was promised in the room, the
estimated requirement being over £600.

But nevertheless it is somewhat difficult to keep the
various benevolent undertakings of Erasmus Smith distinct
the one from the other, and it is characteristic of the way
in which the history of Christ’s Hospital has so far been
written that the sole mention of him in “Trollope” is a
note on his picture in the Court Room, — “a melancholy-
looking portrait by a very moderate artist.” It will perhaps
give some idea of the activity of this “ melancholy-looking ”
benefactor to remember that before he wrote the above letter
he had rebuilt a “ school,” which is not specified, but was
probably intended to serve all purposes except those of
Mathematics. Trollope says it was badly built of old
materials. Erasmus Smith’s offer was to rebuild the school
if the Hospital would provide the timber from its estates,
and in that case he reckoned it would cost him .£500. The
site chosen was at the east end of the Hall-Play, parallel
and near to the present French School. Begun in the

54 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

spring of 1671, it was finished in February 1672, when
“ all the children of this Hospitall went into the Schoole
erected by Erasmus Smith Esqr, where an oration was
spoken in the Gramar Schoole by Luke Timberlake a
Child of this Hospitall before Sir John ffrederick Knt
and President.” It would appear that, in spite of the
benefactor’s good intentions, the new school was badly
built, and in 1776 was further weakened by the erection
over it of a new ward and a drawing-school ; so about
1790 the whole had to be abandoned, and another erected
at the expense of another “Smith,” John by name, pretty
much on the site of the present Grammar School in the
Ditch. I know of no print or drawing which preserves
the outward appearance of Erasmus Smith’s building, and
the lack is the more to be regretted ; for here, not in John
Smith’s building, Coleridge “ enjoyed the inestimable
advantage of a very sensible, though at the same time a
very severe master, the Reverend James Bowyer”; here
Charles Lamb learned nothing because his master, Matthew
Feilde, “ was engaged in gay parties, or with his courtly bow
at some episcopal levee, when he should have been attending
on us”; and here Leigh Hunt’s “grammar seemed always
to open at the same place,” Feilde “languidly bearing his
cane as if it were a lily, and hearing our eternal Dominases
and As in praesenti's with an air of ineffable endurance.’’
It is of interest to note that Erasmus Smith wished his
School “ on the Sabbath day to be sett apart for publick
worship,” but was told this would contravene His Majesty’s
Regulations.

This done, Erasmus Smith pressed forward the matter
of more accommodation for children boarded out in the
country. In June 1673 the Committee received from him
a proposal which was calculated still further to crowd the
immediate neighbourhood of the Garden. He told them
he was “further willing to build . . . two wards upon ye
piece of void ground that lyes before the Compting House,
Provided that the Hospital find rough Timber for the hole
worke, and that the said wards be bedded round at the

THE GARDEN AND THE GRECIANS’ CLOISTER

THE SCHOOL’S BUILDINGS

cost and charges of the Governors. He also stipulated
that they should hereafter consider whether their revenues
will permit them to erect two wards “ upon part of the
Towne Ditch adjoining to London Wall.” I do not know
if the last phrase is to be taken as implying that any part
of the City Wall was still standing, but the entry shows
the effect Erasmus Smith had upon the future configuration
of the Hospital, for the wards in the Town Ditch on
“ ground that lyes before the Compting House ” are un-
questionably represented by Sixes, Sevens, and Eights,
which continue the line of the Greater Dortor. This par-
ticular project of Mr. Erasmus Smith was estimated to cost
£489 ys. 6d. The block over the east cloister, as already
stated, was rebuilt by Sir Francis Child in 1705.

Before we leave the Garden two other contemporary names
deserve grateful mention. The south side was rebuilt at the
cost of Sir Robert Clayton, sometime Lord Mayor, under
the guidance of Sir Christopher Wren, partly upon the
“ Giffs ” and partly on land appropriated from the parish of
Christ Church, by the direction of Wren as Surveyor-General,
and with the connivance of the Bishop of London and the
Court of Aldermen. Trollope has a story, of which I find no
trace in the records, that Clayton desired to remain “ anony-
mous” in the matter, and that his partner, Mr. Daniel Morris,
promised to bear half the cost (£5,000), but was prevented
by death from so doing. The anonymity of this worthy
benefactor is very probable, and the inscription which, as
I write, has just been removed to Horsham leaves no doubt
as to his bearing the cost of “most Part of this Fabrick.
Anno Dom. 1682.” It was probably in the same modest
manner that Sir John Frederick, another Lord Mayor, who
became President of the Hospital in 1662, first mooted his
design for rebuilding the great Hall on the west side of the
Garden ; for it is recorded in February 1671 that “a worthy
person that desires not to be knowne ” had offered to “ cover
the hall.” His idea, no doubt, was that the ravages of the
Fire could be repaired ; but this proved to be impossible,
and the Refectory was demolished down to the roof of the

56 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

cloister. The new Hall, which was built about 1680 at the
sole cost of Sir John Frederick, lasted till the third decade
of the nineteenth century. Its appearance, both inside and
out, is very familiar. Its roof carried two lanterns ; it had
five large windows on each side, those on the west being
blocked up in order to provide space for Verrio’s huge
canvas portraying King Charles II. in the act of delivering
the charter to the Royal Mathematical School — a picture
painted at the instigation of Mr. Secretary Pepys. Under
it were the pulpit and a small gallery let into the wall for
choir boys. The tables for the wards were in three long
rows, and in a gallery at the north end was the organ,
presented by a Governor named Skelton, and doctored with
much assiduity by the great Renatus Harris. Trollope is
responsible for the statement, which I have failed to verify,
that it cost Sir John the sum of .£5,000. Certainly the
worthy President, who, according to “Stow,” was a scion
of the House, was treated to every kind of flattery and
laudation, a specimen of which appears in the account of
Speech Day. He occupied the Presidential chair for a longer
period than has fallen to the lot of any other except its
present royal occupant, the Duke of Cambridge.

So much for the buildings on the four sides of the Garden ;
but a word must be said of other uses to which both the
Cloisters and the centre of the quadrangle were put. The
original burial-ground of the Hospital lay with a grim irony
in the neighbourhood of the Infirmary, not of course the
present building nor its predecessor mentioned by Trollope
as built in 1720 [instead of 1732], but an earlier building
nearer to the present Bath. Its exact position is fairly shown
in an order of 1758 to “pull down the Smith’s Shop and
repair the Carpenter’s Shop in the Church Yard behind the
Writing School,” a carpenter’s shop being there to this
day. In November, 1729, it was ordered that “a view be
taken with workmen of the sickward and Church-yard be-
longing to this Hospitall, it being apprehended that Burial
of the Dead near the Foundation hath prejudiced the said
building.” This no doubt was the reason why in 1721

THE SCHOOL’S BUILDINGS

they had already begun to bury beneath the cloisters in
specially prepared vaults. There is a reference in that year
to “the vault under the new Room in the North Cloyster,
which “ shall be from henceforward used for a Buryall place
for the children of this house.” This “ new Room ” is else-
where called “ the new Parlour,” and may have answered the
purpose of what later generations called the Day Room ; it is
characteristic of the age that a vault should have been placed
beneath it and that the cloister should have been known
in consequence as the “Dead Cloi.” But by 174° other
accommodation appears to have become necessary. For
instructions were then given that “ the vault in the Cloysters
where the Children of this House are buried when full be
closed up with brick and from thenceforward that such
children as shall happen to Dye be buried in the Quad-
rangle in the middle of the said Cloysters.” Of course, for
many years there has been no interment within the walls.
Dr. Rice was buried there in 1853, and Mr. Trollope in 1863 ;
but in old days the funerals of the “ Blues ” must have been
quite gruesomely impressive. “ The appearance of the youth-
ful mourners,” says the wordy Trollope, “moving with
measured steps by torchlight, and pealing their sepulchral
dirge along the sombre cloisters of the ancient priory, was
irresistibly affecting ; and the impressive burial service, suc-
ceeding to the notes of the anthem as it sunk sorrowfully
on the lips of the children, riveted the spectator insensibly
into a mood of serious and edifying reflection.” But even in
Trollope’s time (1834) the “striking effect produced by the
funereal glare of the torches ” was a thing of the past, and
the ceremony took place in the daytime.

The “Garden” ceased to deserve its name in 1779, when it
was arranged to “open the Grass Plot in the Cloysters and
pave it as a Play-Place for the Children ” at a cost of £382.

The present archway from the Garden to the Hall-Play
is the successor of a much narrower passage which used to
be called “the Creek.” It gave access to the Old Grammar
School and a multitude of miscellaneous buildings in the
western territory of the Hospital. Here the Franciscans

58 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

had their Little Cloister, with its Infirmary and dole-house
(north and west side), its kitchen and hall (east side), its
shaving-house and guest-house (south side). All these lay
in the northern half of the space. To the south, nearer
Newgate Street, were the Franciscan Bake-house and the
Brew-house, which seem to have continued to be used as
such by the Hospital. But clearly in this southern half there
was a large space to which the “Gififs” one way and a gate
in Newgate the other way gave general access, and which
went by the name of the “ Gray-Fryers,” or more exactly
“ Gray-Fryers Court.” The last phrase occurs in a note
(dated August 27th, 1667) to the effect that “a tenant in-
formed the Committee that Mr. Offley was digging a cellor
under the great gate to the streete or passage that leads out
of Newgate Markett into this Hospitall and the Gray Ffryers
Court.” Here in the days that followed the dissolution of
the Franciscan Monastery, Richard Grafton, the “ King’s
Printer" to Edward VI. and the first active Treasurer of
Christ’s Hospital, had his printing-press. Here, as in “ the
Towne Ditch,” the Governors derived part of their income
from the rents of houses let to private persons. Conspicuous
among these was the family called Howes. To the Con-
temporaneous Account of John Howes we have already
referred. He indeed had some official connexion with the
Hospital as “ renter and gatherer of legacies,” a post which
he doubtless owed to Richard Grafton. His son Edmund
carried on and enlarged Stow’s Annales. In 1637 the
dwelling which this family occupied was re-let to Timothy
Howes, and is described in the minute both as being in
“Gray ffryers Court” and as “situate at the west end of
Christ Church” (or close to the present carpenter’s shed).
The name of this family is always written “ Howe ” in the
registers of Christ Church, where it figures frequently in
the latter half of the sixteenth century. At Lady Day 1647
two houses in “Gray Fryers Court” were let on lease, and
another entry dated November 1674 says that “ Dr. Moreton,
Physitian, liveing in Gray ffryers House had liberty to take
downe part of a buttress belonging to Nurse Ambroses Ward

THE SCHOOL’S BUILDINGS 59

and the which is ready to fall, he making it good at his owne
charges.” But the tenants were not all merchants like Howes
or professional men like this doctor. In 1700 John Austin,

“ a Siderman,” was allowed to lease “ the little shop and
cellar in Gray fryars" for £3 $s. a year, “to tye which
bargaine he gave 2 s. 6d. to the poores box.”

Nor did the Hospital give up the “Gray Fryars” wholly to
tenants. One of the chief buildings that looked into it was
the Mathematical School, erected about 1710 at the west end
of the “ Giffs,” so that southward it faced the burial-ground
of Christ Church. The early history of the “ Mathemat,”
which on general questions of its management is, as will
be seen elsewhere, very voluminous, is also very scanty as
to its locale. The “ King’s Boys” must have been taught and
lodged elsewhere for forty years before this school was built
in the “Gray Fryars,” and wherever they were they had
not only class rooms but an observatory. No boys, says
an entry of 1684, are to be allowed on “ the Mathematicall
ledds, unless he (the master) present there.” Comparing
this with another, dated 1674, to the effect that Mr. Leake,
the first Mathematical Master, was to teach his forty “att
the upper table in the Greate Hall until such time as the
Schoole shall be fitted ” for their reception, we may place
the erection of their first habitat between the two dates.
But the “ Mathemats ” of the eighteenth century, being
looked upon as the most important part of the School,
certainly enjoyed the most commodious of its buildings,
though one that is said to have been built by Wren on an
insecure foundation. It stood at the west end of Sir Robert
Clayton’s block. The ground floor, on a level with the
“Giffs,” is said by Trollope to have been used as a warehouse
up to 1775 ; but this statement must be modified by an entry
dated February 1730, which records an arrangement that
“ the Room under the Mathematicall School, formerly used
as a Free School,” should be made into a Grammar School
room. Above this ground floor on the westward side was
the classroom for the “ King’s Boys,” a lofty apartment
reaching to the roof of the building, on which they had their

6o ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

observatory. The “ King’s Ward ” was to the south, over-
looking the churchyard of the parish. It was arranged in
1735 that “the Boys of the King’s Ward do from henceforth
eat their meals in the Royal Mathematicall School at the
seuerall Tables as they now stand,” and it can easily be
imagined that these “ Mathemats ” became a distinct caste,
governed by their own social laws and with a general
contempt for laws of any other origin. From this castle at
the end of the “ Giffs ” they would swoop down to harry
and to plunder the rest of the community till the system
could be endured no longer.

Before passing from the south side of the “Hall-Play”
to the north, it will be well to note that during the greater
part of the school’s history its only access to Newgate Street
was by a narrow entry called “Gray Fryers Gate.” It was
only in 1825, when preparation was being made for the
erection of the present Hall, that the Governors, with the
co-operation of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, secured a large
Newgate Street frontage and made the big gates. But
nearly a century earlier there had been a great clearance
to the extreme north of the “ Hall-Play.” In 1731 the Sick-
Ward was reported to be “an old ruinous building and
absolutely necessary to be pulled down and rebuilt, it being
in great danger of Falling.” There was a general desire
to make it larger and “more comodious and ary,” and
this was done by pulling down “two old Tenements and
part of the Stabling in the Stable Yard in Gray Fryers lyeing
contiguous,” and throwing their site into that of the Infirmary.
In the meantime, while the building was in progress, the
patients were thoughtfully accommodated in the “two old
houses in the Stable Yard in Gray Fryers.” The new
Infirmary was partly constructed of the materials of some
old houses pulled down in Butcher Hall Lane, and was
insured in the “ Hand in Hand Office for ^j^,ooo, or as
much more as the said office will admit of.” In 1733, as
stated in the minutes, “the Intabliture Round the Piazzas
of the New Sickward” was further adorned “with Triglipth
and Bells.”

THE SCHOOL’S BUILDINGS 61

The rest of the history of the Hall-Play and its buildings
is soon told. Mr. Josiah Bacon, who made his will in 1703,
left the residue of his estate to the Hospital ; the bequest
caused some litigation between the Idospital and the executor,
and it was only in 1727 that the latter handed over to the
Governors a sum of £22,450. With this they decided to
remedy some of the overcrowding in the Hospital by erecting
two new wards at the back of the Writing School and calling
them “Bacon’s Wards.” This large expenditure of capital,
like that of the sums given by Erasmus Smith for his
Grammar School, was not destined to serve a permanent
purpose. It is possible that, both of them being in the near
neighbourhood of the Town Ditch, sufficient care had not
been taken with the foundations. Anyhow, both went down
in the course of a general clearance at the close of the
eighteenth century. Between 1795 and 1835 every vestige
of the Grey Friars Monastery disappeared, with the exception
of the “ Giffs.” This great undertaking, which seems to have
been forced on the Governors by the dilapidated condition of
the buildings generally, embraces the terms of office of three
Treasurers — William Gill, James Palmer, whose portrait by
Lawrence looks benevolently up the Court Room, and
Thomas Poynder, whose picture hangs appropriately in the
Hall. It was found impossible to proceed without an Act
of Parliament, and in 1795 “35 Geo. III. cap. civ.” pro-
vided the necessary powers. The Act has its interesting
features apart from its actual provisions. It shows that a
portion of the “Hall-Play” was still called “Grey-Friars,”
and the Governors were empowered to take over “ so much
and such part of it,” provided that they did not “ shut up or
render inconvenient the Way or Access from Newgate Street
through Grey Friars Passage, and from thence turning im-
mediately eastward over part of Grey Friars to Christ Church
Yard.” This pathway is clearly shown in the well-known
print, dated 1775, of the old Mathematical School, but oddly
enough, the churchyard gates are represented as closed. It
mentions, as being buildings situate within the “Grey Friars,”
warehouses, stables, and “ the Publick House called the

62 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Harrow.” It shows that the old burying ground behind the
Writing School was used by prescriptive right as a resting-
place for the parishioners of Christ Church and the prisoners
from Newgate, as well as for the inhabitants of the Hospital.
It speaks of the need for “the free Admission of Air to the
Hospital,” and for “the exercise of the children harboured
therein.” It mentions “the Long Walk” lying between the
School and St. Bartholomew’s, as well as a number of other
“Foot Paths or Ways, which have been used by the Publick
through the Courts, Yards, and Places.” The immediate
effect of the Act is obvious. The School got more breathing
space, as buildings were cleared off the “Grey Friars” and
the “Hall-Play” became the fine open space it is, right up
to the Compter (now the Gymnasium) wall, and a similar
clearance was made at the Little Britain gates. The church-
yard behind the Writing School was to be added to the
ground available for building purposes, and the parishioners
and the prisoners were to be compensated for their loss of a
cemetery by the substitution of a parcel of ground “ upon
which there are at present divers Buildings belonging to
Christ’s Hospital,” situate in the parish of St. Botolph’s,
Aldersgate. It then fronted upon the narrow passage lead-
ing from Butcher Hall Lane to Little Britain, but is now
one with the churchyard of St. Botolph’s, Aldersgate ; and in
1884 my predecessor at Christ Church, in conjunction with
the parish vestry, gave up the interest of the parish in this
Aldersgate ground, which now forms part of the “ Postmen’s
Park.”

But the important operations for which this Act gave per-
mission were greater than the Hospital’s finances could meet,
without some special aid. Therefore a Building Fund was
started in 1803 — not the happiest of moments — and was kept
open for over thirty years. It realised ,£44,000, and it is of
interest to notice that the subscription list, which contains
some famous names such as Sir Robert Peel and Shute
Barrington, Prince Bishop of Durham, also witnesses to the
generosity of “ Old Blues.” The “ Amicable Society,” founded
in 1775, sent £250, and the gifts of other former Scholars of

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY THE REV. L>. F. HEYWOOO

THE SCHOOL’S BUILDINGS 63

the House accounted for nearly £17,000 out of the total
raised. In one way or another the Governing Body expended
upon this great scheme of rebuilding over £150,000, between
the passing of the enabling Act in 1795 and the year of the
Oueen’s Accession, and it will be well to conclude this chapter
by saying roughly how such a sum was spent. It may be
added that the fund remained open for years after the work
was finished, and finally realised almost enough to cover this
large outlay.

To begin, as we are there already, with the “ Hall-Play.”
Mr. Bacon’s two wards were demolished, together with the
miscellaneous buildings between the Sick Ward and the
Newgate Street border. Along the north side of the “ Hall-
Play” at right angles to Sir John Frederick’s hall, which
fell with a great crash in the course of the excavations, rose
Mr. Shaw’s new Hall, which for seventy years has deceived
so many into a belief that it is the work of the Royal builder
of the chapels of Eton and “ King’s.” The total cost of it was
£61,000, much of which must have been due to difficulties
caused by the Town Ditch. The stone was laid with much
pomp and circumstance on April 28th, 1825, by the Duke of
York, acting for King George IV., just as on October 23rd,
1897, and with the same trowel, the stone of the future Hall
at West Horsham was laid by the (then) Prince of Wales on
behalf of Queen Victoria. Trollope, who was present, and
who ought to have been a reporter, records that the Bishop
of London (Dr. Howley) offered prayer, and “after a moment’s
repose in meditation upon this solemn address to the Almighty,
a shout of acclamation burst forth from the assembled throng,
and the company separated.” The Hall was opened on
May 29th, 1829, and this time our eye-witness confesses to
entertaining mingled feelings. “It is melancholy,” he says,
“ to reflect upon the mortal changes which had taken place
in the interval. The royal hand which gave the first auspicious
impulse to the rising pile was cold in death.” But on the
other hand “ every British bosom must have throbbed with
inward pride in the contemplation of so vast a monument
of national benevolence.” The latter sensation may well

64 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

have been more sincere than the former, and certainly
William Thompson, the Lord Mayor, who presided at the
opening, had reason to be proud ; for he was also President
of the Hospital, and had been as generous to the Building
Fund then as through his gold medals he has been an incen-
tive to the scholars of the House ever since.

The erection of the present Infirmary had slightly pre-
ceded that of the Great Hall, for it was begun in 1820 on
land acquired from St. Bartholomew’s Hospital by an ex-
change highly advantageous to both parties. At the present
moment there is a desire in which everyone joins, that a
modus may be arranged by which St. Bartholomew’s shall
possess its own again. Having finished the Infirmary and
the Hall, the Governors turned in 1829 to the buildings in
a line with the old Hall at the east end of the “ Hall-Play,”
where five wards (ix. to xiii.) with schools on the ground
floor were put up at a cost of £14,000. Thence they passed
to the north side of the Ditch, where the erection of two
wards, the Grammar, the Mathematical and the Drawing
Schools, was entrusted to “ the respectable firm ” of Messrs.
Cubitt, the contract price being £12,492. And they com-
pleted their task by rebuilding Erasmus Smith’s and Sir
Francis Child’s wards (now i. to viii.) on the eastern side of
the Garden, demolishing the east cloister and replacing
Whittington’s Library and its “ Dead Cloi ” by the present
Grecians’ Cloister, at an outlay of £26,100.

This enormous quantity of bricks and stone and mortar
was a costly luxury, and it was secured at the expense of
some inevitable vandalism. But there is no question that
the contractors earned their money by putting in good work.
Few buildings of the size of Christ’s Hospital have required
less structural repairs in seventy years. To-day, when their
demolition is imminent within a few months, they are all as
sound as ever, and the “ house-breaker ” has his work cut out
for him ; so that the old question finds its inevitable vent :
“To what purpose was this waste?”

CHAPTER V.

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

“lam grateful to Christ’s Hospital ... for its making me acquainted with
the languages of Homer and Ovid.” — Leigh Hunt.

IT will be necessary to occupy a considerable space here-
after with an account of the Mathematical Foundation
of King Charles II., and it will appear from that account
that the Grammar School was not always able to hold its
own against the King’s School. But, with a longer history
at its back, and with practically all the great names in the
Hospital’s roll of fame on its books, the Grammar School
claims the priority, and up to the present it has always been
a Grammar School Master who is, nominally or actually,
the Head Master. In the first list of salaries, “John Robyn-
son,” the “ Gramer Schoole Mayster,” receives a higher wage
than the “ Clarke ” or the “ Chirurgione,” and that is all that
is known about him. It must even be left doubtful whether
his reign lasted till the advent of Ralph Waddington in
1564. Trollope, who gives Waddington a cursory mention
as “ one of the early masters,” preserves the epitaph upon his
monument, from which it is to be gathered that he was
“ hujus Scholae per annos 48 Moderator dignissimus,” and
that he died at the age of eighty-four in 1614, two years after
his retirement. He married, according to this epitaph, at the
age of sixty-seven, and the only mention of him in the
Christ Church registers deals with a marriage of two people,
presumably his servants, and describes him as “ Mr. Wadyng-
ton Mr of the grammar school.” We can see something of
the nature of his work from an entry in the Court Book,
July 19th, 1581. “The Gram Skole beinge viewed this daie
ther is found as ffoloweth.” In the “ Vpp Skole” there were

66 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

15 “ Howse children,” or foundationers, and 64 “Towne
children,” or paying pupils ; in the “ Lower Skole ,” 27 “Howse
children” and 51 “Towne children.” But the “Towne
children” are in this entry separated into two classes. In
the upper school “ Mr Waddingtons alowaunce” is given as
25 pupils, and the other 39 are said to be “w‘oute Bills,”
which presumably means that they were free scholars. It
will be explained later on in this chapter that throughout the
history of the Hospital till within living memory masters
were allowed to eke out their income by taking private
pupils, who joined their classes and became as much a part
of the school as day-boys can. “ Waddington’s alowaunce”
of twenty-five would not have satisfied Shadrach Helmes
(1662-78), who had eighty. But the permission thus
granted to Waddington made him a teacher of considerable
importance in the City, and, if we only had a list of his day-
boys, it might be possible to claim that the benefits of
Christ’s Hospital were extended for a small consideration
to some who are now the honoured names of “ the stately
times of great Elizabeth.”* Indeed, my friend Mr. A. W.
Lockhart, the present Steward of the Hospital, whose
accurate knowledge of the school and its sons is without
rival, has suggested a theory of some interest. He has
observed in Dr. Venn’s list of the members of Caius College
that between 1574 and 1590 several students were admitted
pensioners or scholars, who are described as having been
taught at “Grey Friars’” School, others “at school under
Mr. Waddington,” one “at the Grey Friars’ School under
Mr. Waddington,” one “at Blackfriars’ School under Mr.
Waddington,” and one “at Christ’s Hospital under Mr.
Waddington.” The last named entered Caius in 1589, and
he is the first case in which the proper name of the founda-
tion is given in the list. The majority of the names (five out
of seven) are, however, not to be found in the lists of Christ’s
Hospital, and Mr. Lockhart has therefore suggested that
Waddington really had two schools, the Grammar School
consisting of the “ House Children,” and the “ Grey Friars’

* It is certain that Warren Hastings was prepared for “John Company’s” service
by our Writing Master, Mr. Thomas Smith, and attended Christ’s Hospital as a
day-boy in 1749.

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

School ” containing the “ Towne Children,” the latter being so
named to keep up the memory of a school which had been
maintained in the monastery.

The notion is attractive, but the proof is not yet forth-
coming. To begin with, the monastic educational establish-
ment, though likely enough, rests only on the foundation
of a pious opinion, by which we hope that the Franciscans,
being a learned order, did not keep all their learning to them-
selves, and no instance has been adduced of a mention of
“Grey Friars’ School” in the Caius list during the time
when the Friars were in possession. The passage in Stow
on which Mr. Lockhart also relies (“Again, in the year 1553,
after the erection of Christ’s Hospital ... a School was also
ordained there at the citizens’ charges ”) is simply a testimony
to Stow’s accuracy, not to the existence of a separate “ Grey
Friars’ School.” For the Grammar School was not the first
necessity, nor any other school, but rather the proper care of
helpless children. The masters, as stated elsewhere, drew
the salary in respect of their first quarter’s work on Mid-
summer Day 1553. Stow is therefore speaking of the
ordinary instruction, not of any school within the school.
It is a more serious objection that the Hospital’s records do
not offer any confirmation of the theory, though the name
“Grey Friars,” as attached to part of the premises, was in
familiar use till the end of the eighteenth century. At the
very time that the Caius list contains the phrase “Grey
Friars’ School,” the Court Book gives its account of the
“view” of “the Gram Skole,” already referred to, without
giving the slightest hint of the employment of the two
names. It seems therefore obvious that the mistake* must be
attributed to the Caius dons, who, as one instance shows,
were not too sure whether to write “ Grey Friars ” or “ Black
Friars,” and came in process of time to realise that they
were dealing with Christ’s Hospital, whether their pensioners
were day-boys or on the foundation. Nor is there, un-
fortunately, any similar list in regard to any other college.
Lastly, there is nothing to bear out the idea in Waddington’s

A similar mistake still prevails in the expressions “ Christ Church boys” and
| “ Christ Church Hospital.”

68 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

epitaph, which Trollope has preserved, and which does not
err on the side of omissions : —

“ Angligenm hunc peperit Londinum gloria gentis
ALtona huic artis semina prima dedit,

Granta tulit segetem fructumque tumescere fecit,

Londini messes orphana turba tulit.”

Considering the great length of his reign over the Grammar
School, the references to Waddington in the records are very
few. He asks for “ bokes for the children,” as Catechist, and
it is arranged that “children vnder Mr Wadingtons pte,”
shall write out the Sunday and Paul’s Cross sermons. And
once he got into serious trouble with the Court. One of his
pupils, Roger Smith (or Smyth), who had been sent to the
University of Cambridge by the Haberdashers’ Company in
1578, and whose name appears in Dr. Venn’s list of Caians,
was reported in 1581 to have “ronne awaie from Cambrydge
synce Christmas last,” and to have been at the Hospital with
Mr. Waddington “aboute a monthe or v weeks sithens, who
never disclosed the same to the gounors.” There were also
other charges against him, as, for instance, that he “ did verie
uncharytablie stryke the vsher in the skole,” with the result
that he at once received notice “ to dept oute of his offyce,
and to geve place to some other ther to be placid.” How-
ever, both his troubles blew over within a few months.
“Touchinge the contrauersie wch hathe long tyme conty-
neued ” between master and usher, both the parties “ in
psence of this coorte haue ben verie earnystlie moved vnto
quietnes and friendlye loue vnfained, as becometh one
chrystyan to another,” they have each “forgeven the other,
and for testimonie thereof they haue closed either of their
hande in other, very frendly.” As for Roger Smith, he re-
turned dutifully to Cambridge, where three years later he
proved his earnestness by a representation that he was
“wantynge relef and chefely to by nedeful Boks for his
studie.” It may be noted that, though he was preferred to
the University by the Haberdashers’ Company, the Governors
considered that they had a right to control his attendance at
Cambridge, and it may be taken for certain that they gave

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

him more substantial support than “ Boks for his studie.”
Yet he is described in the Caius list as educated at Black-
friars School under Mr. Waddington.

The latter, who went blind in 1594, and was thenceforth
practically incapacitated, resigned in 1612, and was succeeded
as Upper Grammar Master by Thomas Haynes, or Hayne,
who had taken the place of the usher whom Waddington did
“verie uncharytablie strike.” Anthony a Wood ( Ath . Oxon.,
vol. ii. p. 42) says that he was born at Thurciston, near
Leicester, and entered at Lincoln College, Oxford, where “ he
obtained great knowledge in Philosophy, and the more for
this reason, that he was taken off from various Recreations
and Rambles by a lameness in his Legs from his Cradle.”
He was “ a noted Critick, and excellent Linguist and a solid
Divine, beloved of Learned men, and particularly respected
by Selden.” His published works, of which Anthony a Wood
gives a list, were apparently written after he left the Hospital,
but he was buried in Christ Church in 1645, if the same
authority can be trusted. The parish registers of the period
did not survive the Great Fire. To judge by the Hospital’s
records, Hayne’s regime was quite uneventful. Nothing is
stated about him save that he could not for some nine years
get into the Upper Grammar Master’s residence, because
Mrs. Waddington was allowed to stay on there till her death,
and that he received in 1628 a reward of £ 6 13^. 4 d. in
respect of his “ painfull service,” and “ by reason of divers
weaknesses which hee ffindeth to growe upon him through
his constant paine therin.”

On his resignation in 1630, there were two candidates for
the post, and the Court Book gives an interesting view of an
election to a Head Mastership, so to call it for the moment.
The two candidates were “Mr John Vicars, Usher of the said
schoole for 19 or 20 yeares past,” and “one Mr Thomas
Walters, Mr of Arts of Magdalen Colledge in Oxford,” and
the proceedings were as follows : —

T^e*re peticons being both read the Court intreated
ru uitor ^r'ce [probably Sampson Price, Vicar of Christ
Church], Mr Thomas Salisbury, and Mr Launce, Divines, to

70 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

give them assistance in the choice of a sufficient schoolmaster
to the place. But Mr Doctor Price refused upon some
Remonstrances made openly in the Court [They may have dis-
trusted this “ Mawl of Hereticks.”] and desired to bee spared
in that Act. Then the other two Divines . . . were intreated
to that purpose, and to withdrawe apart into the Inner Roome,
there to make some proofe of the said Mr Vicars his suffi-
ciency for the discharge of the said place. Whereupon the
said two Divines (according to the trust to them committed)
went and made knowne to Mr Vicars the mynde of the
Court and desired him (as a Resolved way to approue him-
selfe and satisfie the Governors) to read unto or examine
in theire presence some of the best schollars under Mr Haynes
in those Greeke and Latine Authors wherein they learne, that
(perceiving his abillitie therein) they might be able to testifie
theire knowledge in his behalfe. Who made answeare unto
them that there had never beene any such course formerly
taken with other schoolmasters who have been chosen the
place (sic). And therefore since this tryall was without
example (If the Governors pleased not to bee satisfied with
theire long experience of his service in his place, the testimony
of his fifriends and his owne declarations in his Peticon) hee
would not begin any such President in his owne perticuler.
Wherupon the said two divines made a returne of Mr Vicars
his final answeare to the Court. Then the Court (the better
to avoid all partialitie in their eleccon) intreated the said two
divines to propound the same course of tryall to Mr Walters,
(notwithstanding they had many reall proofes in himselfe of
his sufficiency, besides the testimony of most of the knowne
Schoolmasters in the Schooles in and about this Cittie).
Who uppon receipt of the Motion did most willingly accept
therof and (in theire presence and hearing) did appose * the
choicest Schollars under Mr Haynes . . . like a compleate
Grammar and Learned School-Master in most exact and
schollerlike Manner.’

The result of course was the election of Walters, who
thereafter lapses into obscurity till his death twenty-one years
later, when at his desire he was buried “ in the cloyster neere
to my predecessour Mr Waddington.”

But poor John Vicars, who was again an unsuccessful
candidate for the post .when Walters died, deserves a passing
mention. Trollope gives him a long notice, which is by no

* Cf. “ Apposition Day ” at St. Paul’s School.

THE COUNTING HOUSE DOOR

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY THE REV. D. F. HEYWOOD

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

means accurate, and which need not be detailed here in what
is a history of Christ’s Hospital rather than a biography
of “ Old Blues.” His entry into the School is thus recorded
under the date of March 27th, 1589-

‘ Whereas uppon good fryday last ther was lefte betwene
the Counting howse and the Grammer Schole a younge
infant, being a man childe aboute the age of xii monethes,
the same childe is this day admitted in to this howse and
called by the name of John Grammer.’

He was put to nurse to "Agnis Vicars, n. 212” (on the
Hospital’s list of foster-mothers) and he subsequently took her
name. His finding lends a pathos to his request to be buried
“in the cloister nere unto the grammer school dore.” His
unavailing attempts to become Upper Grammar Master as a
reward for over forty years’ service as Usher were due in all
likelihood first to his having been a foundling, and next to
his virulent Presbyterianism and his sorry rhymes against
the Independents. The author of Hudibras counts him
among those who were forced

“in spite

Of Nature and their stars, to write.”

But here it may be acknowledged that in what he wrote he
never spoke save in terms of affection of the school he had
served so long. He told the President and the Governors that

“Your Worships favours, from my Birth still found,

Haue me in all my best Endeauours bound :

And since I owe more than I know to pay,

I rest your Worships to my Dying-day.”

Walters’ successor in 1653 was one George Perkins, the
first Upper Grammar Master chosen from among those who
had been educated in the school. If I record with satisfaction
the fact of his being the son of a tradesman in the parish
of Christ Church, Newgate Street, I am equally bound to
confess that he lost his post at the Restoration, as “ not
having subscribed according to the late Act of Parliament.”

It is now necessary to give some idea of the status of these
“ Head Masters.” To speak truly, Christ’s Hospital never

7 2 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

had any such official save the present one, and he was not
invested with powers equal to the name till the new scheme
came into action in 1891. The “Heads” of the last half-
century by their outstanding ability have gradually asserted
their position as Head, but in fact there was always a power
behind them. Two hundred years ago this power was in
front and in fact everywhere. The person who then did the
work of the Head Master was called “the Upper Grammar
Master,” and his authority was strictly limited to the boys
under his immediate instruction. It might happen, as it still
does, that he found his boys after sufficient trial to be un-
suited for the classical side, but it was not in his power
to transfer them to the “Writing School” or commercial
side. This is borne out by the frequent entries in the
minutes of his watch-dog, the “ Committee of Schooles,” to
this effect : “ Mr Mountfort, the upper grarhar master, pre-
sented the names of some children in his Schoole to be
removed into the Writing Schoole for altogether, they being
(as he alleadges) either superannuated, diseased, or dull.”
But so elementary a question of management he could not
settle on his own authority. Nor did experience or length
of service in any way mitigate this bondage to a set of
excellent but perhaps hardly scholarly City gentlemen, even
though Samuel Mountfort, who had been elected in 1682,
had been commended to the Governors by men like Benjamin
Whichcote and Gilbert Burnet. His very limited monarchy
lasted till 1719.

Four years before his appointment there had been an
inquiry, in which the ubiquitous Pepys took part, into the
state of the Grammar School, and the result implies that
Mountfort would have no easy task. The inquirers found
“about seventy house children therein and as many pay
children under the care of the Master and the Usher.” The
house children have been neglected in favour of the “Town
or pay scholars,” and therefore " that the House children may
be better instructed for the future, they present it as their
opinion that noe Town boy be taught in the said Graihar
Schoole.” Then they proceeded to legislate about numbers.

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL 73

« Having considered the Children that are to be taught in the
Grafnar Schoole in order for the Mathematicall Schoole and
some few other children for the University with some few
other for the eminent services, — they present it as their
opinion that sixty boyes will be a sufficient number to be
bredd up in the Graihar Schoole, unless the Governors shall
at any time hereafter think fitt to augment that number.’

Two things in this report deserve notice. The regulation
as to the teaching of outside scholars has been already
mentioned. For the moment the master in occupation found
the regulation “not good enough,” for within a week of its
adoption Mr. Brice, the Usher, reported to the President (Sep-
tember 24th, 1678) that “Mr Helmes,* the master of the said
Graihar Schole . . . would remove from this Hospitall forth-
with and would take the Town Children with him.” He
evidently knew which part of his work paid him best. But
the other feature of the new rule was more momentous, and
probably, if poor Mountfort could only have expressed his
feelings about it, much more galling. In modern times it
is the boast of the Hospital staff that the old learning and
the new “lie down together,” that Judah does not vex
Ephraim and Ephraim does not envy Judah; but in
Mountfort’s time the new sciences were very, very new,
much as “ Dr. Isa,ac Newton ” was doing to make them
familiar. And when Mountfort came to take up his duties,
he found that they consisted partially in preparing “ some
few” boys for the University, but much more (indeed he gave
an undertaking to do so) in providing a sufficient supply of
Latin-taught pupils for the King’s new foundation. He
might see his best material filched from him to pass under
his colleague, the Mathematical master, without it being in
his power to protest. To take a case in point. In October,
1689, when he had had plenty of time to look about him, he
made some suggestions to the Schools Committee about the
age at which boys should pass from him to the “ Mathemat,”
and had small thanks for his pains. He “ declared his
opinion in writing concerning this matter, which being only
in shorthand, he was desired to transcribe the same in as

* Shadrach Iielmes : floruit 1662-78.

74 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

few words as possible, and to mention only bare matter of
fact, and when he has soe done to give it to Mr Treasurer.”
The question was really of considerable moment from a
Head Master’s point of view, but four years later (June 21st,
1693) he was still mildly applying to the Committee for a
decision, and was referred to the Court, from whom he
appears to have got no more attention.

Besides his actual teaching, he seems to have shared with
his two colleagues of the Writing and Mathematical schools
the responsibilities of discipline out of school hours. For
instance, it was laid down in his instructions that he must
“ be present every Lord’s day both forenoone and after-
noone at Church to observe their behaviour dureing prayer
and sermon time ” ; but this, he protested, was too much
for his patience, and the Governors agreed to substitute
“ frequently ” for every Sunday ; as “ Church ” was at that
time being held in the Tabernacle, a draughty erection in
the middle of Christ Church, before it was rebuilt after the
Fire, there was some excuse for Mountfort’s unwillingness
to be regular, and his desire to be merely “ frequent.”
Again, he was liable to be present in his turn during the
children’s meals in the hall, though this was more or less
dependent upon the general state of discipline. For example,
three years before Mountfort’s appointment (Dec. 19th, 1679)
there was an order of Committee to the following effect :
“By reason of the sicknesse and weaknesse of Mr Wright
the Steward, the Matron, and the negligence of several of the
nurses, the Children are now under little or noe Government
in the Hall or Wards out of Schoole hours, which hath (stc)
and dayly will prove very prejuditiall,” the Committee “doe
order that the foure Schoole Masters, viz1 Mr Mansfield,* Mr
Perkins, Mr Smith and Mr Sampson shall forthwith in turn
dayly be with the Children at Breakfast, Dinner, and Supper,
and in their Wards at night, to observe that the Children doe
behave themselves orderly and according to such instruction
as they give or should give them, at Schoole and Catechisme.

The mention of “Catechisme” suggests a description of
* Mountfort’s predecessor : floruit 1678-82.

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

the one office which gave a certain precedence to the Upper *
Grammar Master. He was generally appointed Catechist at
a small additional salary. This brought him into contact
with the whole school, which assembled for the purpose of
learning the Church Catechism under his instruction. And
it may be well at this point to show how from the beginning
and on till the great change of 1891 Christ’s Hospital set
herself to impart to all her sons and daughters the doctrine
of the Church of England “ and none other.”

We start with the second Grammar Master, Waddington,
who in 1570 is found making a request for “ bokes for the
Children, which is the Catechisme Late set forthe by Mr
Nowell, Deane of Powlles,” and we find the books provided
“out of hande.” Again in 1579 there is an enactment that
“ all the officers of this Hospitall shall every Sondaie be
present in the hall of this house at the Catechisme tyme.”
Apparently, the officers took the injunction to “be present”
very literally, for in 1581 it is added that they are “there to
remaine untyll thexamynacon be done ” ; moreover, if any
officer absents himself “ without lycence or vppon a reason-
able excuse to be accepted by Mr Tresurar,” he “shall pay
to the poores Box iiiid.” Nor were the Governors themselves
exempt, at any rate in these early days. “ Euery Sonday in
the yeare,” says a minute of September 23rd, 1581, two of the
Governors are to be at the catechizing, according to a rota
consisting of members of the City Guilds, “ that is to saie the
fyrst month ii mercers, the ii two grocers and so throughe the
companies, being Governors, as they stand in the table.”
And there is a much higher penalty for “ shuffling.” “Yf
anye in this appoyntment beinge dewly warned absent them-
selves (without they appoynte one other in their place) shall
paie to the poores boxe twelue pence without redemptyon.”
The first record as to the payment for this difficult task
is to the effect that John Hales who was appointed in 1579
should have “ a yearlie stypend of vH by the year ” ; and the>
first mention of the place of meeting shows that “ Catechize ”
was held in “ the louer part of the greate churche,” that is
to say in the nave of Christ Church, which was some two

7 6 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

hundred feet long by itself ; but two years later (September,
1581), the books speak of “the Catechisme in the grt hall,”
and henceforth the Grammar Master took his catechetical
exercise within the walls of the hospital. Thus in 1628,
perhaps because they had begun to find attendance at
Catechism somewhat of a burden, the Governors were
warned “ to see the Children Catechised every Sabboth day
in the Hall,” and Mr. Vicars, the then Catechist, “ for his
greate care and paines” had his “sellery” raised about the
same time to ten pounds. No doubt the girls of the Hospital
were included in this instruction. But a good lady, “ Mrs
Margaret Wale, Widdowe,” took it into her head in 1643
to leave five pounds a year “ for some honest and able man ”
to instruct the “ Maiden Children ” in the principles of re-
ligion. For this office there were two Candidates, Mr. Vicars,
the ordinary Catechist, and Mr. Wickings, the Steward, and
on a vote “the Maior parte of hands” were held up for
Mr. Wickings. But Mr. Vicars decidedly objected. He had
been instructing the girls and doing it “of his own Voluntary
Inclinacon,” which means that he had not been paid for it,
nor had any of his predecessors ever done so. Evidently
the Governors felt he had a grievance ; and so “ for the
Auoyding of further difference and Controuersie,” decided
that Mr. Vicars should have Widow Wale’s five pounds a
year for catechising the girls. The money was well earned
if he carried out his instructions ; for he was to teach them
“On Thirsdayes Satterdayes and Sundayes Two howers in
euery of the said dayes by a perfect and full hower glasse."
Both the hour-glass and the length of the discourse will
serve to remind us that in 1643 the Puritan was already
a power in the land. The Restoration reduced the “two
howers” to one on each of the same three days, as may
be seen from the rules to which Mountfort put his signature
on appointment in 1682. The modern schoolboy would think
it a curious Saturday half-holiday, out of which an hour was
taken for the Church Catechism.

But the point from which we started this description of the
Catechist and his duties was the position and prestige of the

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

Upper Grammar Master. He had this vastly important part
of religious instructor assigned to him, but it is clear that it
gave him no pre-eminence, still less a right to interfere with
his colleagues* To take a case in point. In December 1702
there was considerable tension between the masters because
Mountfort in his capacity as spiritual pastor took to sending
for boys from any school at any hours “ to give them correc-
tion for absenting from Catechize.” The other masters
appealed to the Committee, which held one of its “large
debates on this matter ” and managed to arrange a com-
promise, which put the poor Upper Grammar Master still
more “ in his right place ” than he was before. They thought
it indeed “ highly reasonable and necessary for Mr Mountfort
to send for any boy down to his Schoole in schoole houres
upon account of being a Defaulter or absenter from Cate-
chize” ; but he must not take too much upon him. In future
he must arrange to send for his runaways during the first
hour of school (7 to 8 a.m. in summer, and 8 to 9 a.m,
in winter), “ and at noe other houres or time whatsoever.” He
might not even choose the text-books for his Catechumens ;
that was done by the Committee on outside advice; for “Noel,”
as the books call the old dean, was at last displaced in
1685, after answering the purpose for over a century, and
“for several reasons moveing this Committee, and particularly
by the advice of the Lord Bishop of London, it was agreed
Dr ffords and Mr Evans exposition upon the Church Cate-
chisme shall be provided for the Children not exceeding 100.”
It would appear that in 1718, when Samuel Mountfort
was in his dotage, the Governors were anxious about the
progress of this religious teaching, and they gave an order
that “for the readier perfecting the Children in their Catechise
three thousand of Catechisms of the Ch : of England be
printed and one given to each child ” — an act which must be
connected with the circumstance that a few days earlier the
Committee “ being mett divided and went two into every
ward of the House in order to Catechise the Children.” And
they were always ready to adopt any means of making the
The office of Catechist was, in fact, sometimes held by the Usher.

78 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Catechism intelligible. In 1754 “the Rev. Mr James Townley,
upper master of the Grammar School and Catechist [1753-
1760] presented ... the Church Catechism in a Declaratory
Form, intended to assist the Children in understanding the
Questions and Answers and to fix the whole more strongly
upon their minds.” But this merely added to the children’s
burdens, for copies were at once sent to Hertford and Ware
for each child “to learn by heart as well as the Church
Catechism.” In Trollope’s time Crossman’s Introduction to
the Christian Religion seems to have acted the part of the
“ Declaratory Form.”

One other point in the Catechist Grammar Master’s duties
must be mentioned here, for it had characterised the early
days and remained in force long after Mountfort’s time. As
far back as 1581 there is an order of the Court that “euery
sondaie ii of the best Lerned children vnder Mr Wadingtons
parte shalbe appoynted ” to “ pen the Sermonds at paulls
crosse euery sondaie.” This writing out in their best round
hand of discourses of unmerciful length may have lapsed
a little in the course of years, but it was still a tradition, for,
shortly after Mountfort’s appointment, there is a motion
of Committee (January 13th, 1684), “that the Catechizer’s
charge might receive some alterations” as to the Sunday
afternoon hour, and there is this special note : “ the same
is to be remembered, that hee causes some of the Children to
give an accompt what they remember of the Sermonds
preached that day.”

Catechist as he was, and directly responsible for religious
instruction, the Upper Grammar Master was apt to be called
to account if he allowed his zeal for his sacred office to be
controlled by a little common sense. It was his traditional
duty to “enter every morning into the said [grammar] schoole
at 7 of the clocke and there presently according unto lawdable
custome [to] see the Children in the said schoole devotely
say and make prayers and supplicacon vnto Almightie God,
As well in the morning as at 11 before noone, as also
at one of the clocke in the afternoone, and at any other time
when the Schollers shall departe from Schoole.” But Bishop

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL 79

Compton, as every “ Blue ” knows, composed a set of prayers
to be said at meal-times and in the evenings, and Mountfort
felt that to say prayers in school as well was supererogatory.
However, the Visitors of the Schools at Michaelmas, 1695,
thought otherwise, and reported him to the Committee.
Why, they asked, did he omit “ the reading of a chapter and
prayers to be said in the Schoole”? His reply was that
as Compton’s prayers were said before breakfast, at breakfast,
dinner, and supper, and afterwards in their wards, “if he
used them to it in the Schoole, it might rather pall their
Devotion then otherwayes.” And, to their credit, the Com-
mittee agreed with him.

To pass from his religious duties to his administrative
task as Upper Grammar Master, it is equally clear that the
“ Head ” was head only in name, and that his comings and
goings were carefully watched and promptly commented
on. Just at the end of his time Mansfield was twice in
disgrace for fairly trivial offences. In February 1682 the
watchful Committee suggested that he should be brought
before the Court, because he “came this afternoon at one
of the clock, stayed halfe an houre and soe went away
and came noe more this afternoone,” with the result that
the children “ get a habit of idlenesse and rudenesse.” The
previous May had seen another dire offence. For “ Mr
Treasurer acquainted the Committee that the Grammar
and Writing Schoole Masters did yesterday (May 2) dismiss
their Schollars on pretence that May-Day falling on Sunday
last they might give the Boyes liberty to play on the day
following. Upon which both Mr Mansfield and Mr Smith
acquainting the Committee they did it ignorantly, and that
they would not presume to doe any such thing for the time
to come, the Committee rested satisfied therewith.” On the
other hand, there was the same tight hold on the master
in respect of correction, which is the correlative of holidays,
and Mountfort was twice called to book for severity, once
in 1695 and again in 1706. The 1695 episode is worth
recording in the Committee’s own words. “ There was a
boy in the house whose friends made complaint of Mr

8o ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Mountfort’s very severe usage of him, giving him 31 lashes
one day and 31 the next day,” and the allegation had to
be sifted by the help of “ Mr Green, the Surgeon.” So
they adjourned that he might attend and report. But next
week, when the matter came up again, “ the Surgeon being
called was not to be found ” ; probably, though the Grammar
Master had no such authority as would make him a terror,
the Surgeon preferred “not to be found.” Anyhow the
Committee made their report without him, and decided
that there was some ground for the complaint. Still they
“do not find that he hath practised the same lately,” and
content themselves with saying that for the future Mountfort
is “required and enjoyned to use such moderate correction
to the children, as may reduce them to good behaviour,
more by shame then smart, which both as a Master and
a Divine is left to his discretion.”

On the whole, his actual teaching work at the beginning
of his time can hardly have been of extreme difficulty. He
had just seventy boys in his school, and they were fairly
equally distributed into four classes, of which the highest
was called the fourth. He promised on appointment to
keep a good supply of boys to be drafted into the Royal
Mathematical School, which for a long while was his most
imperative duty. He got rid by degrees of those whom he
found it impossible to teach. For the rest, he had to be
ready twice a year to receive an examiner at “the Visitacion
of Schooles,” and occasionally to bring up a boy or two to
the Committee as ready for the University. We can now
see with what success the Upper Grammar Master answered
these two requirements.

The Visitation of the Schools took place with the greatest
regularity at Easter and about the third week in September.
The examiners were appointed at a Committee a few days
previously to the Visitation ; the same man examined year
after year, and his report was given in a day or two after
his examination or even on the very day itself. Thus for
some twelve years at the end of the seventeenth century,
the examiner is Dr. John Williams; for the first twenty

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL 81

years of the eighteenth century the reports are in the un-
distinguished name of “ Thos. Cooke.” The system obviously
tended to formality, and the examiner rarely wrote more
than three or four lines, to the effect that he had “ this
day” examined the boys of the Grammar School and found
them moderately well acquainted with “ the Several Authors ”
appointed for their study. Occasionally, the beggarly
elements of such a statement are supplemented by a detail
or two. One, which occurs frequently both in Williams’
reports and in Cooke’s, settles a question which is still
of interest. “I find,” says Dr. Williams in 1690, “the lads
of the fourth classis very well instructed in Tully’s Epistles
and Erasmus Colloqiyes.” “ In particular,” Cooke reports
in 17 1 1, “the upper part of the fourth class gave me a good
account of Erasmus and Tully’s Epistles.” Presently Cooke
adds to our knowledge of the books studied by mentioning
with approval the work of “ the Classes which read Corderius
and Cato,” but he says, “ I miss a class between Cato and
the Vocabulary, which used to be in the School ” (September
1717). At another time (September 1715) he misses two
classes which used to be in the School, “ the one whereof used
to read Cato, the other a book called Sententiae Pueriles.”
Besides all these he mentions the Greek Classes. We have
thus got certain boys at the top, who learn Greek, and
are, no doubt, the cream of the Fourth Class. That Class
reads year after year the Colloquies of Erasmus and Cicero’s
Letters — a richly deserved compliment to Erasmus. Then
there is a Corderius Class, a Cato Class, and a Class called
the Vocabulary. All this helps to solve the question why
two hundred years later there should still be Classes in
Newgate Street called “ Erasmus,” either “ Great ” or
“Little,” either “A” or “ B.” It has sometimes been urged
that these boys gained the name “ Erasmus ” because they
learned Greek and because the Dutchman did so much for
the study of that language in England. But from the
examiners’ reports it is clear that the Greek pupils were a
very small minority of the boys who read Erasmus. Again,
the examiners drop naturally into the Christ’s Hospital

82 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

custom of calling the Classes by the books they read century
after century, till the masters must have been heartily sick
of them. The Fourth-class read Erasmus, and “Erasmus”
became its name.

It is only fair to the examiners to say that they sometimes
gave expression to their dissatisfaction. “ I did not find the
boys of the inferiour classes,” Cooke complains, “to be so
ready ” as usual ; or, again, he makes an exception to his
praises in the case of the Corderius boys, “most of which
are not fit to be continued in the said school.” But he puts
his finger on a much more serious flaw in Mountfort’s work
as Grammar Master, when he mentions the poor supply of
boys qualified for the highest class. It may have been the
fault of the Mathematical School, which had all the interest
of the Governors on its side and attracted the best boys to
its “ Orders ” ; the fact remains that Mountfort did but little
to push boys on to the University. This appears from his
own admission in regard to his early years, and from a com-
plaint of Cooke’s later on. In 1695, when the Writing
School was rebuilt at the cost of Sir John Moore, there arose
a question about the ceremony to be observed at the formal
opening, and Mr. Mountfort was requested to prepare and
print a Latin Oration to be delivered by one of the boys.
One would have expected the Upper Grammar Master to
seize the chance of asserting himself on an occasion which
more naturally belonged to his Writing colleague. But
Mountfort excused himself, as he was “ but in a weakly
condition.” Besides “ he declared that he is of opinion that
he hath never a boy in his schoole that’s capable of speaking
it now that Cobb and Frith are gone to the University.”
As he had only “lost” six pupils to the University in the
last five years, this was hardly a reason which did him credit ;
and, even if his chief scholars were few, it ought to have
been possible to prepare some lad in the Erasmus “ classis ”
for the reading of a speech that Mountfort was to compose
himself. But the lack of qualified material in the Grammar
School appears still more from the examiners’ reports.
Cooke says in 1714, “I fear in little time the upper part of

THE FOURTH FORM ROOM

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

the School will not be sufficiently supplied,” and his remarks
of four years later speak still more eloquently of a day of
small things. “ Only one defect,” he says, “ I observe, that
the Greek classes are not filled, the Second whereof wants
a speedy supply of one boy," and at the next visitation, six
months later, he finds that “ the Greek classes are defective,
there being but five as yet instructed in that language.” Yet
the numbers under Mountfort had for many years been
much above his original seventy ; for the Visitors, already
referred to, who found fault with him in 1695, made it their
chief complaint that he had “ broke the method of learning
without any order of the Court ” ; and he replied that he had
now one hundred and twenty boys in the Grammar School,
and had made certain rearrangements for their advantage ;
besides, he added, as if that would settle everything, he had
the approval of “ Esq. Pepys ” for what he did, and so he
received the Committee’s absolution.

Mr. Cooke’s remark about the depletion of the highest class
in the Grammar School describes the problem which had to be
considered during the first quarter of the eighteenth century.
The minutes, it is of interest to notice, show that the familiar
title of Grecian, though not mentioned totidem litteris, was
already beginning to take shape. The top class is referred
to as “ those who read Greek,” “ the Greek Form,” “ the Greek
Class,” and even as “the Greek boys,” from which it is no
great leap to “ Grecians,” whilst those below begin to be
definitely called “the Erasmus Class." But this period
(1700-25) had other difficulties than nomenclature. The
highest class, as already stated, was frequently short of its
proper complement, a trouble which was to appear again in
Boyer’s time, and yet there was now a tendency to cut its
numbers down. The demands of “the University” (no
doubt Cambridge is meant) for a knowledge of Mathematics
were causing trouble to the pupils of the Grammar School.
And, worst of all, Christ’s Hospital of two centuries ago was
in the throes of the so-called “ Classical versus Modern ”
controversy. It will be well to give the evidence on each
point in inverse order.

84 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

(i.) It was noted in March 1713 that “severall children not
designed for the University are continued in the Gramar
School till ffourteen & ffifteen years of age to the great
prejudice of such children.” For the moment the Committee
contented themselves with deciding that twelve and a half
years should be the limit, and that such boys should then
be sent to the Writing School, adding (in their wonted
absence of ceremony with the Grammar Master) that he
“ have notice of this order and the same to be set up in
his School and to be observed.” A few weeks later the matter
came up again. These boys, it was explained, were “ de-
prived of the opportunity of instructing themselves in Writing
and Arithmetic, the more imediate and necessary qualifica-
tions for their preferment in the world,” and the following
scheme was approved. No boy above the age of nine was
to be taken into “ Mr Cobb’s School ” (i.e. the under grammar
class), and at the end of six months Mr. Cobb was “ to give
an account whether the boys put under him are fit to be
continued or rejected.” Being “ continued ” of course meant
that they would pass under the hands of Mountfort, and the
scheme gave orders that at the end of three months Mountfort
“ be obliged to give the like account of each boy’s capacity.”
Their desire, obviously, was to prevent boys from “ wasting
time over the Classics,” when they might be preparing for
commercial life.

(ii.) This is the time when the Hospital began to see the
need of a special course of instruction for its Grecians in
higher mathematics. The commissioners of 1837 noted that
the Travers and other gifts to the Mathematical School had
“ of late years ” been used for the benefit of the upper grammar
classes, but the essence of this arrangement can be found a
century and a quarter earlier. For it was agreed in 1712
“ that David Currey and Thomas Trigg [who afterwards gave
the Hospital over £500 as a token of gratitude] the two
upper boys in the Gramar School do for two or three hours
in the day goe to the Mathematical School, viz1 one to the
Royal 1 Mathematical School the other to the New Mathe-
matical! School [Stone’s Foundation] to be instructed in

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

some parts of the Mathematicks in order to prepare them
for the University.” Three years afterwards, when Edmund
Tew, who enriched the Hospital at his death with a legacy
of £4,000, was a “ Greek boy,” the expedient devised for a
special case became a perpetual ordinance, “ that the two
upper boys in the Grammar School for the time being do for
the future, a year and a halfe before they goe to the Uni-
versity, goe two Hour’s in a day, viz1 from seven to nine in
the morning into the Mathematical School in order to fitt
them the better for the University.” Considering that in the
period already mentioned (1700-25) only four exhibitioners
went to Oxford as against twenty-five to Cambridge, we
are probably right in supposing that the requirements of the
latter university, whose first Tripos list was to come out two-
and-twenty years later, compelled the Governors to provide
their candidates with this mathematical preparation. Yet
the School scored no Tripos honours till the eleventh list
(1758), when Henry Binfield was 7th Wrangler.

(iii.) But the chief difficulty was to keep up a proper supply
for the Upper Grammar School, and at the same time to
make sure that the material was of sufficiently good quality.
The Committee of March 1713, whose scheme has already
been referred to, decided (though it is almost certain that
the first clause was not insisted on) “that one boy and no
more be sent in each year to the University, that ten boys
and no more be at the same time instructed and fitted for
the University,” and that they be taught in three classes,
“ two wherof to be in the uppermost and four in each of the
other two classes.” The fourth class in the Grammar School
was to consist “ of fforty boys to supply the Royall Mathem1
School and the number designed for the University,” Mount-
fort thus having fifty altogether, while the under master had
sixty in three classes of twenty, so as to fill the vacancies in
the Upper School. This proved to be merely a paper scheme.
In the following November Mountfort came to the Committee
complaining that he wanted boys for his school, and all they
could do was to order “ that Mr East School Master at
Hertford be wrote to and that he send up ten boys to the

86 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

House (viz1) Six of the most pregnant and four of the
oldest ” — the latter no doubt to fill up the remaining places
in the cart. Again, the rule about one boy a year for the
University caused immediate difficulties, for Mountfort had
to report in 1714 that his two upper boys were over nineteen,
and the Committee agreed that “they must be sent to the
University upon the charge of the House or be otherwise
disposed of.” They were both sent, and one of them, Thomas
Grover, became a Fellow of Trinity ; but “ for preventing the
like inconvenience in the future” the Committee decided to
weed out the Upper Grammar School still further. The
“ Greek class ” was to be reduced from ten to six, pre-
sumably in three “partings” of two each, with a corre-
sponding reduction in the lower classes, and they called in
their perennial examiner, Mr. Cooke, to pay a special visit
and “ make his Report of the five [afterwards altered to
six] best Qualify’d boys both in respect of age and Learn-
ing to be continued for the University that soe the others
may be imediately removed into the Writing School to be
Qualifyed for other imployments.”

Apparently, although the master was clamouring for a
supply of boys and the Committee were reducing the
numbers, the Grammar School continued its useful work.
Exhibitioners went to the Universities at an average rate of
two a year, and at least qualified for their degree. Mountfort
was succeeded in 1719 by Matthew Audley, a former Grecian,
who found himself under the same strict control as his pre-
decessor, and seems to have needed it. He was ordered that
“ he doe for the future apply to Sr George Merttins Knt
Treasurer before he sends for any Book or Books for the use
of the Grammar School, who is to order the same as he shall
see fitt,” while at the very same date the examiner was re-
porting “that the Tully’s Epistles are so very incorrectly
Printed that they are not fitt to be used.” Evidently this
matter was not attended to, for in 1725 Cooke complained
that “the Boys of the Fourth Class who for 30 years past
have been examined in Erasmus and Tully’s Epistles as the
Statutes require they should be offered themselves to be

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

examined in Erasmus only, the reason whereof I know not.”
But, whatever the interference from the Counting House,
Audley was clearly very unsatisfactory. He was “ complained
of” in 1720 “touching his severity in the correction of one of
his boys”; in 1722, “for Misbehaviour to Sir George Merttins
Treasurer,” when he was “ exorted to a better behaviour for
the future”; in 1724, for “Divers Neglects and Eregularities
in his conduct and Duty to the Great prejudice and ill ex-
ample of the Children”; and in 1725 for another “great irregu-
larity.” Probably, from the point of view of the Governors,
nothing in Audley’s life became him like the leaving of it
the same year, when death saved him from dismissal. Peter
Selby, who had left as a Grecian in 17 11, and had just been
made Under Grammar Master, at once came into Audley’s
room and put things on a better footing. Cooke, whose many
years of examination were nearly over, found Selby’s “ severall
Greek Classes very well versed,” and Mordecai Carey, one of
Mountfort’s pupils, who had gone up to Trinity in 1705, and
subsequently became an Irish bishop, reported “ those in
Greek to be extraordinary perfect, and those in Latin to be
very well” (1728); and again, “ I find the upper boys perfect
to an extraordinary degree not only in Greek and Latine,
but in Hebrew also,” — the first mention, as far as I know, of
Semitic studies as part of the curriculum. Both Grecians
and Deputy-Grecians were reading Hebrew, when the Com-
missioners of 1837 made their investigations, but the subject
has long since dropped out. Peter Selby’s efforts were
directed to an improvement in the class-books. Within a
year of his election he “presented a new sett of Select
Epistles out of Tully more Plain and not so difficult as those
in use, and which with great pains he collected and at
his own Expence Printed, chiefly for the use of the
Grammar School in this Hospital, and requested the favour
of the Committee to permitt him to dedicate the same to
the President Treasurer and Governors.” Perhaps he hoped
for something more tangible as well, but he had to wait
for that till 1728, when “in a most dutifull manner he pre-
sented his book intituled a new Praxis for the more easy

88 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

initiation of Latin Schollars compiled by him with much
Pains and Application.” This time he was awarded ten
guineas “as an encouragement to learning and industry,” and
the general absence of any complaint against him in the
minutes is more eloquent even than his election to the vicar-
age of Clavering of his endeavour to do his duty by the
Grammar School.

Nothing more definite can be attested of his three succes-
sors, Seawell Heatherly, James Townely, and Peter Whalley,
of whom only the first was an “ Old Blue.” But the last-
named should be saved from obscurity by the fact that
for the last nine years of his very limited monarchy he had
the Rev. James Boyer as his colleague in the Lower Grammar
School. With him — for he succeeded Whalley in 1776 — we
come to the only Upper Grammar Master of Christ’s Hospital
who is known to fame, though even he is excluded from the
Dictionary of National Biography. Boyer (or Bowyer) was
born in 1736, the son of a “Citizen and Cooper,” and
it is of interest to note that both the family and the School
are to-day represented in the person of Mr. John Boyer,
the venerable clerk of the Coopers’ Company. “ J. B.” was
admitted to the Hospital in 1744 from the parish of St.
Botolph’s, Aldgate, his Governor being Mr. “ Micajah Perry,”
and he was prepared for the university by Seawell Heatherly.
Of his career at Oxford nothing is known save that he entered
at Balliol ; but he must have had some attainments to hold
his own with the man who succeeded him as Under Grammar
Master. For Matthew Feilde had won the Chancellor’s Medal
in 1772, the year after the same honour had fallen to the
great Law of Peterhouse, who became Lord Ellenborough,
and Feilde was a Fellow of Pembroke. No schoolmasters
have ever been more charmingly delineated than these
two, under whose sway, as Lamb has told us, “ the Upper
and the Lower Grammar Schools were held in the same
room, and an imaginary line only divided their bounds.
Their character was as different as that of the inhabitants
on the two sides of the Pyrenees.” It is hardly necessary
to quote such familiar words as Lamb’s playful description

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

of the two. He must ultimately have reached the superior
side of the “imaginary line” and come under the “heavy
hand ” of “ J. B.,” but he writes as one of Feilde’s pupils,
all “ careless as birds,” taking “ two years in getting through
the verbs deponent, and another two in forgetting all that
we had learned about them.” Meanwhile Feilde “ came
among us now and then, but often stayed away whole
days from us ; and when he came it made no difference
to us — he had his private room to retire to, the short time
he stayed, to be out of the sound of our noise.” With
the result that “ his highest form seldom proceeded further
than two or three of the introductory fables of Phaedrus.”
Lamb adds, quite truly, that Boyer could not interfere;
Feilde was in no sense “ under ” the Head Grammar Master,
but was responsible to the Committee, who, strangely enough,
had a good opinion of his industry. They made him vicar
of Ugley and curate of Berden in 1785, permitting him to
retain his mastership and to neglect his benefices. They
did for him what I know no other instance of their doing
— they paid the cost of his dilapidations at Ugley, “ con-
sidering that the said Rev. Matthew Feilde has filled a very
laborious office in this Hospital near ten years.”

But Feilde had greatness thrust upon him by Elia’s and
Leigh Hunt’s descriptions. Boyer was really a successful
master, as success was reckoned in those times, and if he had
been responsible for discipline out of school, and had held
anything approaching to the power of the modern Head
Master, the minutes would hardly contain certain references
to the conduct of Grecians whom Lamb has made famous, —
references which can well be left in their present obscurity.
In his class-room Boyer was obeyed with a holy fear. All
our three essayists agree about that. Lamb tells of his “heavy
hand” and his rabidus furor. Leigh Hunt’s verdict is that
“ he was indeed a proper tyrant, passionate and capricious.”
Coleridge knew Boyer better than the other two, and has
left us an appreciation of him which Elia acknowledges to
be an “ intelligible and ample encomium.” “ I enjoyed the
inestimable advantage,” Coleridge says, “ of a very sensible

90 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

though at the same time a very severe master.” After speak-
ing of his classical judgment, he goes on to acknowledge
Boyer’s care in making them read the best English authors.
“ I learned from him that poetry, even that of the loftiest
and seemingly that of the wildest odes, had a logic of its
own, as severe as that of science. ... He sent us to the
University excellent Latin and Greek scholars, and tolerable
Hebraists.” True, his “ severities, even now, not seldom furnish
the dreams, by which the blind fancy would fain interpret to
the mind the painful sensations of distempered sleep,” but
for Coleridge there was no denying that to Christ’s Hospital
Boyer during his whole life “ was a dedicated thing.” A
tribute like this may indeed be coloured by the interest which
Boyer took in our “ Logician, Metaphysician, Bard,” picking
him out against his will as being fit for a Grecianship, and
ultimately suggesting — such is the vanity of human wishes —
that it would be well to enter the boy at Jesus College, Cam-
bridge, “ as the prospect of his preferment in the Church
would be very favourable if he were preferred to that
College.”

But the Hospital’s records tend in every way to confirm
the justice of his pupil’s verdict. For instance, Boyer found
himself in the trouble that had fallen, as we have seen, on
his predecessor, Samuel Mountfort. He could not get the
requisite supply of boys for his school, and a letter which
he wrote to the Committee in October 1790, while Coleridge
was a “ Grecian,” shows his difficulties and his appreciation
of their cause. “It is,” he said, “an indulgence sometimes
granted by the Hospital to the Boys designed by their
parents for the profession of Physic or the Law, that by
a special Order the Upper Grammar Master keeps them in
his course of education till they are of age to be discharged
from the House. This custom is now introducing at Hert-
ford to the material prejudice of the Upper Grammar
School.” “ When the Under School was established at
Hertford upon the plan which has always subsisted with
the Under School in London, viz. : That the best taught
Boys in it should supply the vacancies in the Upper Grammar

THE OLD GRAMMAR SCHOOL

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL 91

School, it was seen that the benefit of thus collecting the
Boys of the finest understandings and best improvement
into one point, as it were, would be very great from the
emulation among so considerable a number under one
Master, whose whole exertions are concentrated in the
higher parts of classical learning.” He then went on to
complain of the lack of recruits for his school. “ At this
time when I have recently received the supply from both
Under Schools, I want of my complement eight boys, which
is more than the sixth part of my appointment.” Obviously,
if things went on in this direction, “the Master of the Upper
School cannot expect to obtain for the future other than
Boys of the second rate.”

The system to which Boyer refers of giving some special
attention to boys intended for “ Physic or the Law ” is a sign
that even the eighteenth century made some attempt to intro-
duce a little elasticity into the objects of the Grammar
School. It may perhaps be traced as far back as 1 7 1 7, when
it was noted by the Committee that “ frequent demands are
made for Children out of this House for supply of the
Profession of the Law and other good business, and notwith-
standing the Number of Children now in this House there
is wanting a supply for these purposes, the reason of which
is imputed to the ill-management of the Grammar School ”
[during the last years of Samuel Mountfort]. While the
result of their special investigations into the matter is not on
record, they no doubt made some such arrangement as Boyer
inherited, though his “ Physic and the Law ” pupils had
never, he now told them, exceeded five or six at a time.
He was certainly right when he urged that the system should
not be permitted at Hertford, where these specialists would
“ unavoidably engage a very large portion of the Master’s
time,” who “ has already sufficient to engross his whole
attention.” The Committee saw the reasonableness of
“ J. B.’s ” plea and gave immediate orders that Hertford boys
“ reading the Books in common use with the Third Class
of the Upper Grammar School” should at once be brought
to join that school, and that “ the boys indulged for the

92 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

future in a Grammar education till quitting the Hospital ”
should join the Upper Grammar School at the age of eleven.

Now it is obvious that an absurd impasse of this sort could
never have existed if the Upper Grammar Master had been
allowed anything like the requisite discretion and authority.
The Committee clearly had every confidence in Boyer.
When he resigned in 1799, and perhaps went at last to the
valuable rectory of Gainscolne, to which the Hospital had
appointed him six years before, they bestowed upon
him an unprecedented gratuity of £500, “having borne
in mind the great benefit which the Hospital have de-
rived from his attention in the discharge of his duties.”
But it only needs a glance at the salaries paid to the chief
educational authority and to other functionaries a century
ago to see that the former was looked upon generically as
a person of no great importance. In 1784 he had headed
the list. Then the Clerk received £180, the Receiver £160,
the Apothecary £130, the Steward £150, and the Master
at Hertford £155, while Boyer’s stipend was £ 200 i6j. 8d.
In his last year, 1799, a considerable change has already
come about to the disadvantage of his position. The Clerk’s
salary has risen to £245, the Receiver’s and the Apothecary’s
to ,£210, and the Steward’s and the Hertford Master’s to
£200, but Boyer’s remains at £200 i6j. 8d. ; he is better off
than his colleague of the Junior School only by the odd
shillings and pence, while the Counting House begins to look
down on him altogether. In 1800, soon after the appoint-
ment of his successor, Dr. Trollope, salaries were raised all
round, but the Upper Grammar Master was still well in the
rear. The Clerk was now drawing £330, the Receiver £270,
the Apothecary £250, the Steward £260, and the Hertford
Master £240, but Dr. Trollope’s advance is only in the old
proportion — to £240 1 6s. 8 d. Yet here was a Chancellor’s
Medallist and Members’ Prizeman, whose instruction pro-
duced Mitchell, the translator of Aristophanes, Thomas
Barnes, the editor of The Times, Scholefield, the Regius
Professor of Greek at Cambridge, and John Greenwood and
Edward Rice, whose work as successive Upper Grammar

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

Masters after him carries us up to the year 1853. The
Counting House officials leave him altogether behind in
respect of emolument, and he cannot even catch up the
steward or the doctor. It is indeed sometimes urged that
the masters could better themselves by means of private
pupils’ fees. Privileges cut down are generally a sign of the
presence of some abuse, and it may be that Boyer and his
contemporaries had extended their liberty in the matter of
private pupils beyond the proper bounds. In the old days
when the Upper Grammar Masters such as Shadrach Helmes
(1662-78), who took the place of one George Perkins, “dis-
enabled ” for “ not having subscribed the Late Act of Parlia-
ment,’’ received ^20 a year, they had to take private pupils
or starve. And the Governors were quite reasonable. It
was put to the vote (December 1663) “whether the Maister
and Usher of the Gramer Schoole should have 80 pay
schollers as heretofore or not, and although it be a great
number, the Court by vote at present continued itt.” But
those were primitive days, in which it was necessary for the
Court to enact that “ the children presume not ” to come into
the Master’s presence “ with dirty hands &c. to the disgrace
of the Government of this ffoundation.” But it is almost
certain that in Boyer’s time the number of “ pay-schollers ”
had undergone a great and necessary reduction. Leigh Hunt,
who clearly had no love for “ J. B.,” comparing him with the
tyrannical schoolmasters “ described with such masterly and
indignant edification by my friend Charles Dickens,” says :
“We had a few boarders at the School : boys whose parents
were too rich to let them go on the foundation ” ; and he
proceeds to contrast Boyer’s “caresses” of these lordlings
with his “ spiteing ” of actual “ Blues.” The reader must
reckon with Leigh Hunt’s obvious prejudice. We are on
surer ground when we come to a resolution of March 6th,
1799. the time of Boyer’s resignation, and therefore a con-
venient season for revising the regulations. This new order
was as follows : “ That the two Grammar Masters, the
Mathematical Master, the two Writing Masters and the
Master of the Reading and Writing School be permitted

94 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

to have Private Scholars, not exceeding six each, provided
that no inconvenience shall arise to the Hospital from this
permission ; and further that those Scholars do mix with the
Children of this House, receiving their instruction with them
from their Masters, according to an ancient practice in their
respective School Rooms, and not forming a particular or
separate class.” The ideal before the Governors was thus
practically a “Colleger” and “Oppidan” system, and it
lasted on till well within the last fifty years.

The Grammar School of the early nineteenth century went
through just such a development as might be expected.
When William IV.’s Commissioners made their report in 1837,
they found the Upper Grammar Mastership just fallen into
the hands of Edward Rice, who had succeeded John Green-
wood in 1836. He was a man of ripe scholarship and of an
untiring industry in the care of his pupils, which tended to
shorten a valuable life. The late Canon Buckle left me some
interesting notes on these two men which are worth record-
ing. “ Greenwood,” he said, “ was a schoolmaster of the old
type. He wore a broad-brimmed hat, gaiters, and shoe-
buckles, and sustained the dignity of his station by an im-
posing presence. But, though a fine Latin scholar, he did
not trouble much about teaching. There was no thought of
working for University distinctions. The two Grecians whom
he sent up annually to receive the exhibitions they were en-
titled to at Pembroke College, Cambridge, did not commonly
do more than go through their course respectably. In his
time we took life easily. But a great change occurred when
he passed away and was succeeded by the Second Master,
Rice. I was then Deputy Grecian, and we felt at once the
touch of a new hand. He pushed us on in a variety of ways,
greatly enlarging the curriculum both of our books and
exercises, and we began to think seriously about University
distinctions. In this he was actively seconded by the new
Mathematical Master, Mr. Webster.” It may be well to add
another of the Canon’s recollections about the sermons of
these two, for already it was the custom for the school in the
evening in Hall to hear the Head Master preach, “ a function

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

rather more to our liking ” than the “ exceedingly uninterest-
ing” and "extremely uncomfortable” services at Christ
Church. “Greenwood,” he says, “was a trifle dry and
pompous, but he was intelligible and short. Rice was a
popular preacher at the Foundling [a mistake for “ Lecturer
of the Philanthropic Society”], and he often delighted our
immature taste with the rhetorical orations which had
charmed a very different audience.” The reader should
refer also to Professor D’Arcy Thompson’s Day-Dreams of
a School- Master.

Certainly Rice had a reward for his labours in the success
of many of his pupils. Not to speak of the quiet but
influential career of Canon Buckle, he prepared Harper
for his ultimate headship first of Sherborne and then of
Jesus College, Oxford ; Sir Henry Sumner Maine for a
career of stupendous intellectual activity which it is un-
necessary to particularise, and which his contemporaries at
the school little anticipated, for, “ oddly enough,” Canon
Buckle told me, “ we recognised him only as a poet ” ; Dr.
Haig-Brown for the head-mastership and the practical re-
creation of Charterhouse School ; Dr. Searle for the Master-
ship of Pembroke College, Cambridge; James Lempriere
Hammond for a Trinity Tutorship and for valuable official
service in the direction of secondary education ; the Rev.
G. C. Bell for the headship first of Christ’s Hospital itself,
and now for a quarter of a century of Marlborough College ;
and D’Arcy Thompson for a Greek Professorship at Queen’s
College, Galway. Both the school and the man can claim
their meed of credit for having led to such influence on the
education of the United Kingdom as is implied by these
names.

The Commissioners of 1837 were evidently conscious of
the efforts Rice was making. They found him in sole charge
of eight Grecians, eighteen Deputy Grecians, and twenty-
eight “ Great Erasmus.” The Little Erasmus had recently
been relegated to the Lower School to lighten the Head
Master’s labours. “ Mr. Rice,” said the Commissioners,
“ considers himself able to teach as many as 50 boys

96 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

efficiently, but this can only be done by devoting on an
average four hours daily of his time not spent in school
to the correction of compositions.” The class-books of the
Deputy Grecians and Grecians, as then in use, may be taken
to imply a reasonably high standard. The former read
Pinnock’s Catechism of Hebrew Gra?nmar,'%iz Greek Testa-
ment, Homer, Demosthenes, Cicero, Horace, the Georgies,
and Terence. They made “Latin and English verses and
themes.” The Grecians’ list of books comprised the Psalter
in Hebrew and Ollivant’s History of foseph, there being “ a
Simon’s Hebrew Lexicon for the use of the class.” They
read Thucydides, Herodotus, Aischylus, Sophocles, Euripides,
Aristophanes, Demosthenes, “and Valpy’s Greek Testament.”
“ Original compositions ” were “ required at stated intervals
in Latin, Greek, and English prose and verse” — the latter
being no doubt a survival from the days when Boyer with a
“Pierian spring? Oh, aye, the cloister pump, I suppose!”
would make ruthless emendations in Coleridge’s youthful
poems. It is questionable how far originality was fostered
by another custom mentioned in the Commissioners’ Report.
Besides an English declamation “ on a controversial subject,”
they found that “ the Grecians speak a speech either in Latin
prose or English poetry once a week, which forms a prepara-
tion for certain public orations, which the two seniors are
called upon to deliver on St. Matthew’s Day. These
orations are original compositions on the subject of the
Royal Hospitals, the one being in Latin and the other in
English.”

But the Rice regime saw the beginning of a still more
important change. Up to 1836 it had been the custom to
make a selection of two Deputy Grecians out of each year,
and to place them in the Grecians’ class with a practical
guarantee that when they were nineteen years of age they
would be sent up to Pembroke, Cambridge, or, if necessary,
to some other college, with a Hospital exhibition, one other
Deputy Grecian being selected every seventh year to enter
under similar conditions at Oxford. The actual arena of
intellectual contest at Christ’s Hospital was thus the Deputy

THE GRAMMAR AND MATHEMATICAL SCHOOLS

♦

■■ .

THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL 9 7

Grecians’ class ; and when once admitted to the mystic circle
of Greciandom a boy was fairly safe from further competition
at an age when the struggle and the stress would be of in-
estimable value to him. Gradually but surely the custom
arose of having more Grecians, in order to produce rivalry.
The Universities had not yet introduced their present system
of entrance scholarships, and any college scholarships won by
“ Blues ” were only secured after they had been a year or
more in residence. But the development of University com-
petition was met at the Hospital by a better organisation
of the exhibition funds ; indeed, from 1842 onwards Rice
was able to send up four Grecians a year to Oxford and
Cambridge.

It is unnecessary here to follow out in detail the careers
of his successors. As it has been elsewhere explained, the
office of Upper Grammar Master went through its natural
evolution towards a monarchy, which the somewhat forcible
methods of Dr. Jacob (1853-68) did much to hasten. A
Head Master who urges in the pulpit on a state occasion
in the presence of all his pupils that the intellectual instruc-
tion of the children is lamentably below the general require-
ments of the age, that the internal arrangements are very
defective, and that the religious and moral training is almost
entirely neglected, is apt to be considered by the Governing
Body as something of a mauvais sujet, especially if he builds
his charges on the foundation of a few months’ knowledge
of the facts. But looked at through the eyes of his pupils
Dr. Jacob’s character and abilities bear an appearance of great
attractiveness. “ Indeed,” says his old pupil who for the last
twenty-five years has filled his office, “there was that about
the Doctor which could not fail to win affection and respect.
Dignified in manner, courteous to all, patient and forbearing
under constant provocations, judicious and discriminating in
dealing with divers characters, industrious and painstaking to
a degree, methodical and punctual in the discharge of duty, he
made us feel the influence of a strong character, a distinct
personality. His merits as a scholar, and especially as a
teacher, are beyond dispute. . . . Much at which we laboured

98 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

and laboured in vain under others, while it was but an instru-
ment of torture in their hands, in his became rather an
instrument of music.” The two Head Masters (the Rev.
G. C. Bell, 1868-76, and the Rev. Richard Lee, 1876-1901),
who have filled the three-and-thirty years which separate us
from Dr. Jacob’s resignation, are still living ; and it is difficult
in that case for one who entered the School under the former,
and grew up in it under the watchful care and interest of
Mr. Lee, to give a just estimate of what the Grammar School
owes to them. Mr. Lee’s memorial is written in the book of
the chronicles of his exhibitioners as recorded by Mr. A. W.
Lockhart. If it is to the credit of the generosity of the
Governors that they have provided about one hundred and
sixty “ Blues ” with exhibitions during the twenty-five years
of Mr. Lee’s reign, it is not less to his credit that each of the
one hundred and sixty has obtained some academical dis-
tinction in open competition sufficient to qualify him to
receive the Governors’ help. What other assistance they
have received from him in the cultivation of methodical
habits, of a determination to “ stick at it ” till the foundations
of classical knowledge are well and truly laid, they will be
the first to acknowledge and the last to forget. To have been
“ in to Lee ” for a “ swinging task ” in “ Farrar’s Card ” or for
a drilling in Greek accents, to have heard him worry out an
allusion in an ode of Horace, or lead a trembling flock of
Deputy Grecians into the not too digestible pastures of a
Thucydidean speech, and not least — for the Head Master
is still Catechist — to hear him in the first lesson of Monday
morning draw out the subject-matter of a Pauline Epistle —
these are experiences which go to the making of character as
well as the training of intelligence. The writer of these
sketches of the School’s career would be doing no justice
to his own feelings if he did not confess that, apart from the
satisfaction of a personal friendship, he blesses the fate that
took him to “ Lee’s class-room ” and kept him there for five
years.

CHAPTER VI.

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL

“These boys wore a badge on the shoulder.” — Leigh Hunt.

“They were the most graceless lump in the whole mass.” — Charles Lamb.

HE general appearance of “Blues” is so familiar to the

ordinary citizen that there is no need to remind him
of the white-metal plate which distinguishes some of our
number. If the citizen is asked what the plate means, it
may be confessed that the accuracy of his answer is mostly
in inverse proportion to the certainty with which it is given.
He will tell you that the plate-bearer is a monitor or a
Hebraist or a mighty athlete. But you may occasionally
find a well-informed person who knows that the boy in
question is a “ Mathemat.” Still, if you are further curious,
and assume from this answer that the white-metalled youth
is a budding “Wrangler,” even the accuracy of the well-
informed person will perhaps break down. So it may be
well at this point to explain exactly what the boy is and why
he wears that plate upon his shoulder.

The fighting spirit, in spite of peace-crusaders, is mostly to
be found in any school worth the name. It found vent in
Christ’s Hospital of Charles I.’s day, when the boys turned
out in 1639 with their drums and fifes to lead the train-bands
about the City. But after the Restoration the need was not
for volunteers to fight at home, but for youngsters to serve in
“ the King’s Ships ” and to man the growing mercantile

“ King Charles, our late (now blessed) King,
Hath enlarged our Foundation ;

Whose glory through the world shall ring,

By means of navigation.” — An Easter Anthem.

ioo ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

marine. Charles II. was hardly re-established on his throne
before a naval war broke out with Holland. New Amster-
dam was captured in 1664, the Dutch were first of all de-
feated off Lowestoft in 1665, then Monk routed de Witt and
de Reuter at the North Foreland in June 1666, and once
again in 1672 the Netherlanders succumbed to the English
fleet off Southwold. All these victories had not been won
without serious loss to the complement of officers, and it was
natural that the naval authorities should be on the look-out
for regular means of supplying the loss. It would seem that
the idea of founding a sort of “ Britannia ” in Christ’s Hospital
occurred first to the mind of Sir Robert Clayton, one of the
greatest of the School’s benefactors, whose family is still
worthily represented among the Governors. It is indeed the
old story over again. A prominent citizen with a zeal for
philanthropic education suggests a plan to persons in author-
ity, and finally the King takes all the credit. As the elder
Gresham had sketched out the foundation of which Edward
VI. became the Royal Founder, so here Sir Robert Clayton
whispers in the ear of Clifford, the Lord Treasurer, and
induces Sir Jonas Moore, Surveyor-General of the Ordnance,
and no less a person than Mr. Samuel Pepys, Secretary of
the Admiralty, to add their whispers to his. After a while,
probably at the added instigation of James, Duke of York,
then Lord High Admiral, there came forth Letters Patent of
King Charles II. bearing date August 19th, 1673, called by
courtesy “the five and twentieth yeare of oure Raigne.” They
are addressed to Osborne, who had been five months in
office as High Treasurer, to the chancellor, chamberlains and
barons of the Exchequer, to the officers of the Revenue and
to the Mayor and Commonalty as trustees of the property
of the Royal Hospitals, and their preamble is as follows : —

‘ Whereas itt would bee a worke of great piety and Charity
in itt selfe and of extraordinary benefitt and advantage to
all our dominions if such a distinct foundacon were layd in
the said Hospitall called Christs Hospitall and such an
Establishment made as might bee a convenient provision
for the mayntenance of forty poore Boyes in the said

f';V+ tV- WM

4-iif ?! d;«i

*<*,3 £ r 2 li. ?*>

I®

yil

the charter oe the royal mathematical school

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL ioi

Hospitall whoe having attained to competence in the
Grammer and Comon Arithmatique to the Rule of Three
in other schooles of the said Hospitall may bee fitt to bee
further educated in a Mathematicall Schoole and there taught
and instructed in the Art of Navigacon and the whole
Science of Arithmatique until their age and competent
proficiency in these parts of the Mathematiques shall have
fitted and qualified them in the judgment of the Master
of the Trinity House for the tyme being to bee initiated
into the practices of Navigation and to bee bound out as
Apprentices for seaven yeares to some Captaines or
Comanders of Shipps, and that as soon as any shall dye
or be Bound out Apprentices as aforesaid Care bee taken
to supply theire number out of such other Poore Boyes
within the said Hospitall as shall bee fitt for such kinde
of Educacon.’

With this in view the King ordains that there shall be
in the Hospital a suitable schoolmaster, and that “ Forty
Poore Boys in Blew Coates,” to be known by the name of
“ the Children of the New Royale Foundacon,” are to be
selected from the main body of the scholars and are to
wear a certain “ kinde of Badges and Cognizances upon
their Blew Coates.” The expense of the Foundation is
met by a grant out of the Exchequer of ;£i,ooo yearly
“during the terme of seaven yeares,” and there is to be
provided by the Governors “a convenient Place or Ward
of Receipt and Entertainment ” for these forty youths,
together with proper “ Diett Lodgeing Apparell and other
Attendance and Accommodacon,” not omitting “some honest
Widdow or elderly Mayden ” to look after their wants. The
Mathematical Master must have a “Mansion” in the Hospital
and the Governors must furnish the necessary “ Bookes,
Globbes, Mapps and other Mathematicall instruments” for
the boys’ instruction. At the age of sixteen, or, if the
Master of the Trinity House shall see fit, before that time,

• the boys are to be bound as apprentices for seven years to
the captain “ of any of our Shipps ” or to any “ well-
experienced Captayne ” of any other ship, and the Governors
must supply to such children “ one compleate new Suite
of Apparell fit for Sea Service.” Finally provision is made

io2 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

for a “ visitation ” of the master and his pupils twice a year
at the least by some competent examiner.

It will be seen from this sketch of King Charles’ arrange-
ments for the foundation of what all Blues know familiarly
as “ the Mathemat ” that the merry Monarch apparently
gave it an endowment of £7, ooo, and Trollope describes
this as “ little indeed ” ; but the reader will probably wonder
not that it was so little but that it was so much ; he will
remember that in 1672, the year preceding these Letters
Patent, Charles had “closed the Exchequer” and had
appropriated over one million sterling which had been lent
to the Government by the bankers. What then could have
induced the head of a riotous and expensive Court to dis-
gorge £7,000 for the provision of naval apprentices? It
is, in fact, the old story. The “ Royal Founder ” is ready
with pen and paper, but his purse-strings are drawn tightly.
The £7,000 was in reality only part of the generosity of a
former Governor of the House, one Richard Aldworth. His
will, of which the minutes of the Court-book are the only
record, is dated December 21st, 1646; it gave the Governing
Body certain lands in Northamptonshire, and all his estate not
otherwise disposed of, in trust to maintain forty poor orphans
in the School. It also appears from the records that the
boys were to have a distinctive dress, a separate ward, and
their own particular “ master, nurse, and washerwoman ” to
attend to them. But the executors disputed the legacy
and proceeded to fight the matter out in the Courts, nor
were “ the law’s delays ” any less wearisome under the
Protector than at other times. So it was not till 1660 that
any account was rendered of Aldworth’s bequest. It then
appeared that £240 was due to the Hospital in money,
and that no less a sum than £7,427 was secured upon the
arrears of Excise revenue — in other words, was invested in
Government Securities. Hearing of this the Governors at
once admitted the forty children in June 1660, giving them
a separate nurse, but withholding the schoolmaster, because
there was still a doubt whether these Government Securities
were so secure after all. As a matter of fact, shortly after

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 103

the Restoration, all moneys charged on the security of Excise
ceased to be paid out, and the Governors were driven in
December to petition Parliament, which directed the whole
sum to be given them out of the old Excise. But Parliament
might direct and the Privy Seal might appear on writs, but
the money was not forthcoming. The Governors had already
been put to heavy expense in litigation and in the installation
of the forty orphans; so in February 1662-3 the Court of the
Hospital decided that they could not keep up Mr. Aldworth’s
work without Mr. Aldworth’s money, and they distributed
his “ poor orphans ” among the other wards of the Hospital.
Yet how thankful the Governors were for the very least of
the Stuart’s mercies appears in an entry of January 1662.
Charles had sent them a demand for trees from the Leesney
Abbey estate, bequeathed to the Hospital in 1633 — trees
which were “ to bee planted in Greenwich Park.” He
wanted “ 1000 of small burches aboute the biggnesse of a
man’s finger and 100 of bigger burches aboute the biggnesse
of a man’s rist with 50 small chessnutts and 100 young
Elmes.” He was pleased to offer satisfaction, but “ haveing
been very much oblidged to his Matie concerning the guift
of Richard Aldworth, Esq., deceased, they did not thinke
it fitt to demand any satisfaction for the said Trees butt
freely gave them to his Matie” — an example which was
quite lost on him. It is obvious that in the intervening
period Sir Robert Clayton, through the Lord High
Treasurer, “kept on pegging away” at the authorities
with a view to recovering the money. It is more than
possible that he urged the plan of using it to educate boys
for the King’s ships, because he was more likely to secure
the principal on those conditions. At any rate, here is
the result : The Letters Patent make over to the Governors
£7, 000, already theirs by right, and leave in the King’s
hands the balance of ^427, also theirs by right. The
King’s bounty is celebrated by the painting of one of the
largest pictures in the world, the work of “Signor Vario,”
the King’s painter, and every “ Mathemat ” wears for ever-
more a badge with this legend, “ Auspicio Caroli Secundi
Regis.”

io4 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

But in spite of the King’s name being attached to it, and
of Clayton’s and Pepys’ zealous activity on its behalf, the
“ Mathemat ” was in almost immediate difficulties. The first
lot of youthful navigators were ready for sea in 1675, but the
war with Holland came to an end in February 1674, and the
naval establishment probably returned to a peace footing.
Thus the employment of the “ King’s boys ” in the mercantile
marine, which the Letters Patent contemplated as a pis aller ,
became the general rule. But it was still involved in this
difficulty, that the shipmasters regarded apprenticeship fees
as a natural hope of gain, whereas, these being “ poore boys,”
and the Governors having received no more than would
maintain them while in the school, there remained no margin
wherewith to pay the shipmaster’s fee. To this dilemma
Pepys refers in a letter of some years later, dated April 2nd,
1694, to be noticed again later. Here are the words in
which he describes the trouble and the prompt measures the
Admiralty took to provide a remedy : —

* Upon putting forth the first sett of children, in 1675, it
was found that, notwithstanding all his majesty had at this
house’s desire done, by his letters recommendatory on their
behalves to the principal societys of merchants in this city,
the house was convinced of the little hopes to bee had of
their being able well to dispose of these children, without
something of money going along with them ; which the
house, not being in condition itself to bear, were pleas’d by
Sir John Frederick, their then President, and a governor or
two more, to communicate it to me, then Secretary of the
Admiralty, but yet noe member of this house : Who, without
other solicitation on their part, obtained for them soon after,
under the Greate Seale, an establishment for ever of £s7° iay-
per annum, for the binding forth of these children to merchant
masters only.’

Pepys takes the credit for this solid and speedy subsidy,
which was confirmed by letters patent, dated January 24th,
1675. It was paid continuously up to 1883, when it was
commuted for a lump sum, and is the one substantial piece
of direct financial support which Christ’s Hospital has ever
received since its foundation from royal hands.

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 105

But there still remained the problem created by the com-
parative inadequacy of Charles’ original endowment, and, as
at the beginning, private benevolence at once offered its aid.
Only, as the foundation was so bound up with the King’s
name, there was some doubt whether the monarch, who
was obstinate even if merry, would resent such interference.
It appeared, on inquiry being made through Sir L. Jenkins,
that Charles “ would be glad to see any gentleman graft upon
his stock,” and the first to do so was Henry Stone, of Skell-
ingthorpe, a Governor of the House. During his lifetime, in
July 1686, he executed “indentures of lease and release,”
making over his Hadleigh property to trustees, to pay the
income to the Governors, “ for educating poor children of the
Hospital, and more especially such of them as were by
the then new royal foundation there taught arithmetic and
navigation.” His will, dated July 6th, 1688, devised to the
Hospital his Lincolnshire manor of Skellingthorpe, with a
special proviso that £50 a year should be separated for the
use of the Mathematical School, and this sum is still used
for the purpose of buying books and mathematical instru-
ments for the members of the Royal Foundation. It will be
seen presently that the watchful eye of Mr. Pepys was upon
this legacy, and that it became the cause of an angry corre-
spondence.

Mr. Stone’s gift was followed in 1690 by that of Mr.
Daniel Colwall, another Governor of the Hospital. His
benefaction consisted of an annuity of £ 62 8j., charged on
the hereditary Excise, and a lump sum of £4, 000. The
latter came safely to hand in 1691, but the annuity has never
been paid from the first day till now, and may safely be
written off as a bad debt. “Don’t forget,” writes Pepys* to
his friend Reevef (March 15th, 1694), “what you promis’d of
letting me see ye copy of Mr Colwal’s will,” and it is possible
that the zealous Secretary to “ My Lords ” was hoping to
make the Excise disgorge the annuity for the good of his pet
Foundation. If so, he failed.

Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 20,732. + The Assistant Clerk to the Governors.

io6 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

It is obvious that, with two such gifts as these, added to the
yearly £1,000 allowed by the Crown, the Mathematical School
had something to begin on ; in fact, everything now depended
on the selection of a suitable master. In this particular, it
must be admitted that the Governors were singularly un-
lucky. Nor can it be said that they were incompetent to
choose, for they had the advice of Sir Jonas Moore, one of
the best practical mathematicians of the day. Born in 1617,
his life till the Restoration had been full of strange vicissi-
tudes. With the return of the King, he had republished his
“ Arithmetick,” adding to it “a new contemplation general on
the ellipsis.” He was knighted in 1663 after his survey of
Tangier, and made Inspector-general of the Ordnance, which
gave him a house at the Tower and made him a near neigh-
bour to the Hospital.* His interest provided the Foundation
not only with a watchful friend but with good class-books.
Indeed, there is a naive and business-like letter from one
Robert Scott, a publisher, to Samuel Pepys (November 4th,
1681), in which he complains, from the publisher’s point of
view, how remiss the Hospital was in teaching the boys
“Sir Jonas his Cursus ,” and on Sir Charles Scarborough’s
authority maintains “ that it would be a portion to each boy
to have one when they went to sea.” He suggests that
Mr. Colwall, “ being a good charitable person, and a great
esteemer of the memory of Sir Jonas Moore, may be per-
suaded to give, annually, such a number of the books as need
requires.” The price, he kindly adds, he will leave to Scar-
borough and Pepys.

But, putting on one side the willingness of the publisher
to do business, it is clear that all had not gone quite well
with the education of the “ King’s Boys ” or with their
masters. Dr. Leake (or Leeke), the first elected, whose
appointment dates from 1673, was evidently a failure. For
he eked out his salary of £50 a year by taking private pupils,
and discipline went to the winds. In fact, the tradition (to
which the conduct of recent generations gives no colour)

Cf. Diet. Nat. Biog., s.v.

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 107

that the “ Mathemats ” are a turbulent race, took its rise in
the earliest years of their existence. Thus the minutes of
a “Committee of Schooles,” held on January 24th, 1678, have
the following entry

‘ Whereas Wm Hawkes for severall notorious faults proved
against him not only by the Steward but all his Masters &
his Nurse after correction given him he was dismissed by
this Committee out of the Mathematicall Schoole & his
Badge taken off, the doing whereof this Committee hopes
the Court will approve, all the rest of the Children having
taken such notice thereof that there appears a very great
reformation amongst (sic).’

The young antinomian was obviously being punished in
part for his Master’s deficiencies, and just a week previously
the Committee had made up their minds that Leake was no
good. They had him before them, and informed him that
in future neither he nor any other Mathematical Master
“ shall teach any other scholars than the House children in
the said school in the hours from seaven to eleaven in the
morning and from one to five, which hours he must carefully
observe.” Evidently his care of his private pupils had meant
neglect of his proper charge, for the Committee go on to
insist that “ he shall give correction to the children under his
care when need requires,” and then they descend to further
details. He “ shall sit publickly in the School teaching and
interesting the children,” and “not in a private closett.” To
compensate him for the loss of his private pupils, they
offered him an increase of £ 20 a year ; but Leake struck
absolutely. “ He told them he would not for £200 p. annm
be obliged to sitt publickly in the schoole,” and when they
asked him how he expected to “ observe the misdemeanours
of the children ” from his “ closett,” and to supply the neces-
sary correction, “ the want of which hitherto hath tended to
the very overthrow of the said ffoundation,” he was still
of the same mind. The upshot may again be stated in
the Committee’s own words : “ being demanded how long
he would stay he answered, till Lady-Day next and noo
longer.” So they took him at his word, and the same Com-

io8 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

mittee which took off the badge of the pupil took away the
unused ferule of the Master ; “ they desire the Court to
send for him and positively to acquaint him that he shall
otherwise provide for himself at Lady Day, for that the
Court are resolved to choose another man in his roome
forthwith.”

Nor is it right to blame the Governors for expecting a
high standard both in master and pupils. Their idea of the
former they put into shape immediately on Leake’s retire-
ment, and it does them no discredit. They required of the
Master —

‘ i. That he be a sober discreet and diligent person of
good life governement and conversation.

* 2. That he be a good schollar very wel understanding
the Latine and Greek Languages to the end the boyes may
be kept so, and furthered in the Latine tongue, and the
Master able to answer straingers if need be in that Language.

‘ 3. That he doe write a very good Scrivenor like hand,
that dureing the time the Boyes shall stay with him he may
be to them as good as a Writing Master. . . .

‘ 4. That he be an able and very good Mathematician well
knowing in the theory and practice of all its parts and soe
ready that noe strainger from abroad or Practioners at home
shalbe able to baffle him, but on the contrary shall finde his
abillityes to satisfaction.’

And this many-sidedness of the Master was expected to
reappear in the pupils.

In the autumn previous to the event just recorded the
Committee of Schools, attended as usual at this time by
Mr. Pepys, had overhauled the whole system, and their
report is based upon the assumption that these boys,
as they “ weare the King’s badge,” “ lodge in the King’s
ward,” “sitt at the King’s table,” and are “kept at the
King’s bounty,” shall be correspondingly advanced in their
studies. The “Mathemat” of to-day, whatever his other
excellences, is no great Latinist, though some knowledge
of the language is now imparted, but the Committee of 1677
require “the child’s being able wth the help of a dictionary

THE OLD MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 109

to Translate into English (and give a grammaticall acc° of
his soo dooing) Erasmus s Colloquyes, Cicero s Epistles, and
any ordinary Mathematicall Author writ in that language,
and to be able (with the like help only) to translate back
again into true Grammaticall Latin.” What they want is
“(above all) to have the system of Mathematicks now pro-
viding for them by Sir Jonas Moore translated as soon as
may be into Latin, and their lesson both read to and per-
formed by them in that language.”

Meanwhile Sir Jonas was busy preparing a series of class-
books on Practical Geometry, Trigonometry, and Cosmo-
graphy. When he comes to the preparation of his “Algebra”
we are introduced to Dr. Leake’s successor, Mr. Peter Perkins,
who had been elected in 1679, the Court “being satisfied by
Sir Jonas Moore” that he is “an excellent teacher of the
Mathematicks,” and who is now called in to assist Sir Jonas
with his Algebra and his Euclid. But Sir Jonas himself
died in 1679, and Perkins, who was then engaged on the
volume on Navigation, followed him to the grave after being
in office only a few months. The “Navigation” class-book
was finally issued in 1681, two members of the family of
Sir Jonas being assisted in the work by two great Mathema-
ticians— Flamsteed, whom Sir Jonas had brought up to
London and who was soon made a Governor of the Hospital,
and Halley, a precocious Pauline, who lived close by the
Hospital in Aldersgate Street and whose fame is also con-
nected with the issue of Newton’s Principia. In fact, it will
be gathered that the King’s Foundation had everything in its
favour, an endowment, a plentiful supply of scientific in-
struments, a complete set of class-books, — everything except
the requisite personal impulse which can only come from
settled and sympathetic instruction. This, if he had lived,
they might have found in Peter Perkins, for one of the
very few facts which the journals mention about him shows
only an excess of zeal. He got at cross purposes with the
“ assistant nurse to the forty children ” and the quarrel came
before the Committee for settlement. After what they
always call “ a considerable debate ” they agreed “ that it was

ITO ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

reasonable Mr Perkins should give notice to the nurse either
by going to her or sending for her what night he intended
the children which he shall name shall sitt up to make their
observason of the Riseing and going downe of the Moone
and Starrs, and to give her the names of such children in
writeing, that soo she may take care that those children after
that work is over may goo to their Bedds in due order,
and that after he hath appointed the night if it shall prove
cloudy he shall give timely notice to the said Nurse that
he will not use the said children, that soo they may goo
to bedd in due order with the rest.”

But Perkins’ untimely death again left the boys without
a shepherd ; and again Mr. Pepys appears to have no little
say in the appointment of a successor ; nor was “ canvassing
strictly forbidden.” Pepys received on December 1 8th, 1680,
a letter from one Thomas Sheridan, a suspected Papist
connected with the Irish Executive, who writes “ upon so
slender a pretence as once dining with you, and meeting you
elsewhere by such another accident.” This apology intro-
duces the statement that “ Dr. Wood, my very good friend
of many years’ standing, is a candidate for mathematical
reader at Christ Church Hospital.” Sheridan urges not
only that he is “a very honest gentleman,” but, what was
more to the point, a good mathematician, who had won the
approbation of Oughtred ; and is further recommended for
his knowledge “very extraordinary, of the revenue, wherein
he has been already, and might be again, useful to his prince
and country.” Evidently the matter was taken into con-
sideration, for ten days later Mr. Povey writes to Pepys
to say that he has had a talk with Dr. Wood who was
now “ convinced that the matter was not indeed worth
those inclinations he hath showed to it, and that he would
rather now make a decent retreat than advance into a further
competition.” Nevertheless, this same Dr. Wood was elected
in January 1680. His plan seems to have been to prove
that the work of the office was as little “worth those in-
clinations” as the office itself. For the Committee, having
presumably given him a free hand for a time, met again,

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL tit

“ Esqr Pepys” among them, in September 1681. Colston,
the examiner, now reported that the children were neglected,
and one can imagine the Secretary of the Admiralty seizing
the occasion to air his science by a few questions to the
children. “ Upon examination,” say the minutes, they “were
found to be very deficient in answering to what the Dr
said he had taught them and particularly the Doctrine of the
Globes. (The Dr alleadged that for some time he had an
ague upon him which hindered him from attending the said
children. Nevertheless he had constantly employed a man
to looke after them).” But the Committee were not satisfied.

The man whom he “ employed ” was one Hodson, who
is described in the Committee-book as “a person who by
the manners of his conversation, indecencies in habit, loose-
ness of manners, and publick exposing of his intemperance
to the children has forfeited all sort of Awe from them to
his discipline.” Nor under these circumstances is it at all
wonderful that the boys were not up to the standard of their
work, which is described by Dr. Wood as follows : —

1. ‘The practicall principles of geometry, viz. in describ-
ing of Lines, Angles, Parallells, Chords, Sines, Tangents,
Triangles, Secants, and all sorts of plaine geometricall figures
by Rular and Compasse.

2. ‘ The Division and proportionable Section of Lines with
the use of the Diagonall Scale, and the Rule of Proportion
in lines, the Dividing of the Circumference of a Circle, and
the description of the Scale of Chords, Houres, Rhumbs, and
Longitude.

3. ‘ Decimall Arithmetick with the Composition and Extrac-
tion of the Square Root.

4. ‘ The Doctrine of plaine Straitlined Triangles, with the
use of the Table of naturall and artificial Sines Tangents and
Secants, and also the Logarithms of Numbers.

5- ‘Propositions of the Julian Calender with the common
rules for finding the motion of the Sun, Moon, and Tydes.

6. ‘ A generall Rule for finding the Latitude of any place
by the Sun or fixed Starrs.

7. ‘ Questions of plaine sailing with the use of the plaine
Sea Chart.

1 12 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

8. ‘ The use of Mr Gunter’s Scale.

9. ‘ The doctrine of the Globes.

10. ‘The Projection of the Sphere or Circles of the Globe
on a plaine divers wayes.’

But things were “slack” in spite of this formidable curri-
culum, and the Committee decided that they would meet
monthly to keep the Doctor up to the mark. It is worth
while to notice that their November meeting attacked the
favourite “C. H.” topic of handwriting, and they resolved that
“ each of the children shall write one peece a weeke faire
and present it to the Committee with the day of the month
when they wrote the same.” However, something worse than
bad writing was the matter, and Dr. Wood left in the summer
of 1682.

He was succeeded by Mr. Edward Pagett, who devoted the
next thirteen years to the neglect of his duties, and brought
about almost a deadlock in the work of the Foundation.
It is only fair to say that the Committee thought they had
done well in selecting Pagett, who was a Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge; and when his salary was fixed at £100
a year he “ promised by the blessing of God faithfully and
carefully to discharge the place, which gave the Court great
satisfaction.” But one person was far from satisfied and was
breathing vengeance. This was Mr. Richard Norris, one of
the unsuccessful candidates. A few days after Pagett had
begun his work, Mr. Norris was at the Gresham Lectures
and found himself near some “ Mathemats,” who reported
to the Committee of July 9th, 1682, that his conversation
was as follows. He first asked them what Pagett had
taught them, and was told some geometry and some algebra.
“ He made answer ” — so their record runs — “ that, when we
came to Trinity House to be examined, we should not come
off, for we should be examined by him in that which neither
we nor our Master ever heard off.” He concluded by being
rude enough to say, “ Mr. Pagett stands in need of a rope
dictionary,” and showed his hand by asserting “ that if the
Governors had but tried them that Peticoned for the place in

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 1 13

Na.vig3.tion he himself should have had the place. At the
same time there may be some connexion between his griev-
ance and the fact that in a few months Pagett had leave
“ to go to sea to view the coaste ” for three months, either
at Easter or Whitsuntide, with a hint that he had better
take it.

But whatever may have been Pagett’s defects, they were
part and parcel of a time of general laxness in the manage-
ment of the Hospital, which, as it has no parallel at any other
period, serves only to show up the general carefulness with
which resources have at all times been husbanded and wisely
employed. This lax period synchronises with the Treasurer-
ship of Nathaniel Hawes, from 1683 to 1699. The unkind-
ness of over-indulgent praise was never more aptly displayed
than in the inscription on Hawes’ memorial tablet in the
cloisters, which calls him — lucus a non lucendo — “a careful and
faithful Treasurer of Christ’s Hospital.” It is obvious that very
early in Hawes’ tenure of office Pepys had taken the measure
of his incompetence and had decided not to have his official
strictness besmirched by the evil communications of Hawes’
carelessness. The Secretary to the Admiralty retired to his
den at York House, and waited for the Hospital to invite
him out. Trollope* suggests that “the Revolution of 1688
had been the means of interrupting” Pepys’ personal atten-
tion to the affairs of the Foundation. But, in the first place,
it would require more than the Revolution to entice Pepys
from his official duties, among which he reckoned the care
of the “Mathemats”; and, as a matter of fact, Mr. Hawes
was actually in correspondence with him on May 1st, 1688,
or just midway between the day on which the Declaration of
Indulgence was published (April 27th) and that on which
came the order that it should be read in the churches (May
4th). If public excitement were any excuse for neglect of
duty, there was plenty of it at that moment. Hawes’ letter
gave Pepys exactly the handle he wanted. “Worthy, most
honoured Sir,”T he writes to the great man, “on supposal no

* Hist. Christ's Hospital , p. 81.

t Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 20,732.

ii4 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

needful care be wanting for the utmost improvement of the
forty boys of his late Majesty’s Foundation in their skill in
mathematics and navigation, nor any diminution nor aliena-
tion of the least part of the revenues or other provision,”
will Pepys be good enough to get his Majesty’s permission
for admitting to the Mathematical School “a greater number
of the children than these forty”? Well, it is pretty certain
that during that fatal week in the beginning of May, 1688,
King James II. was not in a fit state to be troubled with any
nicely calculated less or more in regard to the “ Mathemats ”
of Christ’s Hospital, and the political impasse probably gave
Pepys just the opportunity he wanted for bringing pressure
to bear on Mr. Treasurer Hawes, who had already had five
years in which to display his want of fitness for his important
office. Pepys maintained his watchful interest in all that
was going on by the help of his cousin, Major Aungier, a
member of the “ Committee of Schooles.” The very boys
themselves seemed to know that they had an active friend
in the Secretary to the Admiralty. For instance, Pepys took
up his pen at “f past 8 at night” on August 12th, 1696, to
write to “ Mr Steward ” as the officer in general charge.
“Your two late runaways,” he wrote, “are (I am told) at my
door, and by my Porter I understand their business to be
to obtain my leave to open some complaints.” But Pepys
refused to see them, and contented himself with a parting
rebuke to the general management, being “ grieved to hear
what your whole neighbourhood rings of, touching the present
discipline of the School these boys relate to.”

As a matter of fact, his active interference had begun
again three years before. On March 1st, 1693, on the invita-
tion of the Treasurer, he sent his views to Mr. Parrey, the
Clerk. “ I had thought all occasion over for your being
troubled more from this hand of mine that I think has not
appeared to you on any of the affaires of the Hospitall now
for more than ten years.” Still, as his opinion had been
asked, he was willing to give it; but he wanted certain
information first on some six different points: “A table of
times heretofore assigned for the stay of the children in their

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 1 15

severall schooles. The instructions of the Gramar and
Math" Masters. Their first and present salaries. My paper
of generall Reflections and advice to the House (I have for-
got in what yeare). The value of the yearly revenue settled
by the Crown and private benefactors on the Foundation.
The yearly charge and balance sheet and a statement
showing what real estate has been acquired.” It will be of
interest to follow the fate of these fairly natural and pertinent
questions. Four weeks later (March 29th) they were con-
sidered by the Committee, and, “ the officers being all full of
business,” the answers were postponed till after Easter.
Another month passed and (April 26th) the Committee,
“ having severall businesses of moment to dispatch,” appointed
a sub-committee to deal with “ Esq. Pepys’ ” queries, very
much as a latter-day Government resorts to a Royal Com-
mission. By May 23rd something had actually been done.
Mr. Parrey presented his “account,” and Mr. Reeve, the
Receiver, presented his ; but the two did not agree, and an
order was therefore given that a joint account should be
prepared. Yet another month, and on June 21st, “this day
7 night ” was fixed for a consideration of their answer.
“ This day 7 night ” came and, “ for as much as there is but
a small appearance,” they postponed it for another week.
On July 5th the Committee actually debated the question
and, “ finding his (Pepys’) inquiries are of great moment,”
they referred them to the General Court, which met on
August 1 8th and referred the answers back to the Com-
mittee. The latter, on October nth, considered them para-
graph by paragraph. They entered it on their minutes that
they “ did think it very advisable and necessary not to dis-
oblige the said Esqr Pepys in anything, especially in whatso-
ever concerns the Mathematicall Foundation.” But, lest
there should be any great haste, they again asked the Court
for instructions as to how they should answer the different
heads of Pepys’ questions. At last, on November 15th, the
Committee felt themselves in a position to order that “ all
these articles ” should be “ answered by giving a true and
just account of all receipts and payments.” As the

1 16 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

“articles” were dated March ist and the answers November
15th, and no attempt was made to deny Pepys’ right to put
in. his questions, it is scarcely to be wondered at that he had
a grievance. Pepys, however, began again early in 1694, and
we are now able to follow his action closely by means of the
ample set of autograph* letters preserved in the British
Museum. His plan was to have friends on the spot, such
as Mr. Reeve, and his “coz,” Captain Aungier, and his
settled purpose was to have a proper scheme for Mr. Stone’s
gift. So on March 15th he tells Reeve to jog “ Mr T rear’s”
memory about this proposal, and “ don’t forget what you
promis’d of letting me see ye copy of Mr Colwal’s will.”
This has the result of bringing an answer from Hawes the
very next day. “If we had only known,” says Hawes in
effect, “ that you were so keen about it, we would have
opened up communications before this ” ; as it is, it must
be postponed till after the Visitation. But, he goes on,
“ Sir, our sub-committee of schooles, upon reasonable
grounds as they esteem them, have postponed the visita-
tion to ye Passion Week,” and Pepys restrained his im-
patience, and on the same paper sent word by the Treasurer’s
messenger that he was willing “ to respite for soe little a
while ye troubling yr court.” The next letter, as being
intended for presentation to the assembled Governors, is
written in Mr. Pepys’ best copperplate, which, by the way,
was very good indeed. It is dated April 2nd, 1694. “ Holy

Week” is now begun, and the visitation is taking place; but
Pepys must “ unbespeak your expectations of my assistance
at it from an impediment you are noe stranger to.” “ Nor,
indeed,” he goes on, “should I (I doubt) be much for-
warder in it were I otherwise at liberty ; while I think upon
the affliction our last meeting, on a like occasion, cost me,
notwithstanding the amends you many months agoe told
me Mr. Pagett had made since his return for the ill effects
of his absence.” Briefly what he wants is a drastic improve-
ment in the system of examination, “an account from our
examiners, under their hands, of each distinct Child s
* Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 20,732.

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 117

proficiency in every of the Articles of Instruction apart,
enjoyn’d for their learning, with the Grounds and Demonstra-
tions of the same.” Even Mr. Halley, apparently, had given
a report which was “ entirely rejected, for its too generalness.”
And then follows a sentence which testifies to the thorough-
ness of Pepys’ system of interference. “ I have prepared,
and here enclose you, transcripts of the particular instruc-
tions soe to be by them (the examiners) especially regarded
in their examinations, with respect to the children, as well of
the Grammar , as Mathematical Schoole.” He closes with
two broad hints on matters that he was constantly pressing.
He wants to have a private visitation of the children himself
at York House, and the settling of the scheme for the Stone
bequest will depend upon “my report” of “the children’s
proficiencies.”

While “ Mr Treasurer” is considering this ultimatum,
Pepys goes quietly on with his efforts to secure the practical
working of the Foundation. On Easter Eve, April 17th, he
writes to Mr. Hunter, of Trinity House, asking him “to look
over ye indentures entered into at ye Boys being bound out
(which I suppose you have by you bundled up),” and sends
him in official exactness a printed list of those who have gone
to sea, with notes “of ye particular year wherein each boy’s
apprenticeship severally expires.” Hunter is “ to sett a tick
at each Boy’s name whose Indentures have been taken up ;
leaving ye rest untick’d.” Pepys will thus get an idea of the
permanent good derived from the training given at the
Hospital. The Monday following (Easter Monday) he is
bothering Reeve, the assistant clerk, for a new list of
Governors, which is to be sent to him “ by one of your
beadles,” and, after signing himself “ your very loving friend,”
he returns in a postscript to the old subject, which is sore
enough to make havoc of his diction : “ I have yet heard
nothing of the Answer you told me the other day from
Mr Trearer I might expect some time from him to my last.”
Next day comes a letter from Treasurer Hawes to Mr. Pepys
with as little satisfaction as usual. Five boys, he says, have
passed the Trinity House examination and will be leaving

n8 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

too soon to be personally tested by Pepys. So, “ to prevent
the hazard of a forfeiture,” let Pepys reply at once “about
Mr Stone’s business.” It is a pretty game at cross purposes.
The Secretary to the Admiralty wants his perquisite as a
private examiner of the “King’s boys,” and the Treasurer
is anxious to secure the use of Mr. Stone’s legacy. Take
Pepys’ next important deliverance, the letter of May 4th,
1694, which occupies six of Trollope’s ample pages, and is too
long to give in full here. He taunts the Governors with the
many months of delay in answering his questions; he sets
his own “applications” against the “industrys on the other
side,” which had “been practis’d, for the preventing me in
it ” ; he takes “ leave to tell you, that as farr as the account
and papers, handed by the Treasurer to you, and from you to
me, are to be relied on, I cannot observe one single article left
unviolated through its whole constitution ” ; but as to Mr.
Stone’s gift he has “ respited the delivering any opinion.”

It must have been an aggravating letter to receive, but
there is no doubt of the inefficient state into which the
Mathematical School was sunk, nor yet of the reason for it.
Poor Hawes, who had just confessed in a letter to Pepys
(April 24th, 1694, Brit. Mus.) that he “grew very old,” tried
hard to make the best of the case. “ I thank God,” he says,
“ I have daily demonstrations that we doe not decline in our
Reputations,” and “ we are not in soe unhappy and il state
as your Honr is pleased (I hope without just ground) to
conclude.” But Pepys knew his facts, and he could put his
finger on the reason. Pagett, the great Trinity mathematician,
on whom the Committee had set their hopes, was a shuffler,
and the Committee had been hopelessly weak in conniving
at his shuffling. We have seen already that soon after his
appointment he received leave to go and “ view the coast,” in
other words to take a sea voyage, and his appetite for leave
grew by what it fed on. It was probably in order to satisfy
this desire that in June 1689, though the numbers in his
school had not increased, he applied for an assistant. What
became of the application is not quite clear, but the Com-
mittee went as far as a resolution that “ Mr Nuton Professor

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 119

of the Mathematicks and one of the ffellowes of Trinity
Colledge in Cambridge” should be asked to report on the
qualifications of Linwood and Fletcher, two “ Blues ” then at
the University. But at the end of May 1692 Pagett actually
“ requested the Comee to give him liberty to be absent from
his schoole for four or five months, having some occasion to
goo over to fflanders and Holland, and he will recommend
a very fit and able person to supply his place in his absence”;
and the complaisant Committee, “concluding (if it shall please
God to spare his life) that his gooing abroad may conduce
much to the further improvement and advantage of the boyes
under his care,” reported to the Court that he had better
be allowed to go. It would seem that Dutch William was
in vogue in the Hospital at the time, for a few months
previously a child of “ Samuel and Mary Mountford ” had
been christened in Christ Church by the simple name “ Myn-
heer.” William was then in the middle of his Dutch cam-
paign, and Pagett no doubt arrived in time to see his
sovereign defeated at Steinkirk on August 3rd, 1692. Any-
how he enjoyed his summer outing so much that in the May
following he asked permission to repeat it, and this time
implied that he occupied some official post in the public
service. The minute (May 31st, 1693) says that he asked
“ liberty for about four months to goo over into Flanders, being
sent for thither by the Dean of Winchester * for the service
of the Publick, and he will take care that his place shall
be supplyed in his absence by a sufficient and able man
at his owne cost and charge, wch (if the Comee pleases to
grant) he hopes will be a meanes to gain him selfe more
experience in the Practick parts of navigation and fortifica-
tion, and also strengthen and confirme him in his health, wch
was restored unto by his gooing abroad the last yeare.”
Again the Committee, “ after a very large and solemne
debate,” referred the matter to the Court, which granted

I am indebted to the present Dean for the suggestion that this is Dean Wicart,
a Dutchman, and one of William’s chaplains. He was installed January 1693,
rarely resided in Winchester, but may have placed some pieces of Dutch glass in
the Deanery windows.

120 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Pagett leave on June 2nd, 1693. The only sign of grace
is the understanding arrived at “that he will never desire
the like thing for the future.” Yet he did desire it, as a letter
from Major Aungier to Pepys clearly shows (Brit. Mus.,
July 1 2th, 1694); but this time “the Court have positively
denied him.” Finally Pagett fell ill and was “ for many days
sick of a feaver ” ; no substitute was provided by him or put
in by the Committee, and when he recovered he found that
the best thing he could do was to resign. It was high time.

But, before his successor was appointed, Pepys thought
it would be well to have an independent examination into
the state of the King’s boys and their knowledge. So he
wrote to the Governors on January 20th, 1695, to say that
he had asked Mr. Toilet, “Secretary to the Honourable the
Commissioners appointed by Parliament for taking the public
accounts,” to be the examiner; and the Treasurer replied
that the Governors had not the slightest objection. When
the election of a new Mathematical Master came on there
were five candidates, the chief of whom were Caswell, an
Oxonian, and Samuel Newton, who received “a good charac-
ter” from “ Mr Isaac Newton.” This and the fact that he
professed to “ understand the Latin tounge very well,” carried
the day for Samuel Newton. But Sir Isaac’s testimonial was
as trustworthy as most others. Six months later, when the
Committee had already begun to doubt whether they had got
the right man, the great Professor writes to explain away
his praises. “ I never took him ” [Samuel Newton], he says,
“ for a deep Mathematician, but recommended him as one
who had Mathematicks enough for your business with such
other quallifications as fitted him for a Master in respect of
temper and conduct as well as learning.” He then goes on
to discount his whole evidence; for “I was almost a stranger
to him when I recommended him, yet since he was elected,
I reckon myself concerned that he should answer my re-
commendation.” But this was just what Samuel Newton
failed to do. He tried to push on the work for a time, but
his temper was clearly none of the best. The two runaways
who found their way, as before related, to Pepys’ office,

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 121

wanted to complain both of the labours and the “ lashings ”
inflicted on them by Newton, and had been encouraged to
“chase” by their nurses’ sympathy. The Committee had
one of their “ solemn debates ” over this incident, and
“ordered Mr Newton not to use any such thing as a fTerillo
in his schoole for the future but rather as there is occasion
to lash them,” which apparently he did. Still, as years went
on, and especially in 1707 and 1708, the teaching failed to
bring the boys up to the standard. When the Trinity House
examiners complained of their inefficiency, Newton persuaded
the Committee that the “ Mathemats ” were not given a fair
chance, and the Committee (June 9th, 1708) ordered Newton
to attend the examination himself “and by that meanes
prevent the boyes being imposed on in any manner of wise.”
Alas! at the next examination (December 3rd, 1708) all his
five candidates were sent back as inefficient and “ more
ignorant in their business than any others that have of late
years come before them.” Then there was a hastily sum-
moned meeting of the Committee, and Newton “delivered
in writing under his own hand the paper following.” It is
better worth putting on record than anything else in his
story.

‘ Gentlemen,

‘ I have had the Honour of being Master of the
Royall Foundation for almost fourteen years, during which
terme I am not conscious of any neglect of my duty even
for one day. I now begin to find the truth of what Solomon
once declared that a Morsel of Bread in peace is better than
a stalled oxe with strife and contention, and humbly beg leave
to assure your Worp8 that as it was a great pleasure and
satisfaction to me, when I was chosen into this office, that
I leave the same with as great a satisfaction, and humbly
hereby resigne the said office to be disposed of as your
Worp8 (according to your wonted prudence) think most
proper for the Royall Foundation.’

And that is the last of Samuel Newton, except a resolution
passed early in January 1709 that he is to be out of his
official residence “in fourteen dayes at the farthest.”

i22 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Still, if it failed to realise all that Mr. Pepys expected
of it, there is no reason for supposing that the Mathematical
Foundation was doing nothing at all. Year after year the
captains of the Mercantile Marine were willing enough to
have the boys as apprentices, and more exalted sailors
showed their readiness to have them in their service, as one
or two instances will show. “ I have now the honour,” wrote
Sir Francis Wheeler in 1691, “to command the Albemarle ,
and am very desirous to have one of the Mathematical! boyes
. . . by assignement. I had about a yeare ago one that was
bred up to accompts by you, and I found him so quick and so
hopefull that upon his death I was very sorry, which leads me
to beg the favour that you’l please oblige me with one, and
I’le engage in any security to breed him according to your
institution . . . and onely desire him to be well provided
with two suits of Clothes and Linnen.” Admiral Russell
had another boy at the same time on the same terms, and
both officers received the thanks of the House, which saved
itself the usual leaving allowance in each case.

Of course, neither shipmasters nor apprentices were always
equally well pleased with each other, and that sort of event
is more likely to be put on the records than the many cases
where all went right and nothing went wrong. An instance
of each sort must suffice. A shipmaster came to the Com-
mittee in 1708 and reported that one Richard Gibbins, who
had been apprenticed to him, had absconded within a year,
and “ hee hath very good reason to believe that he is marryed
to a daughter of Nurse Coles, by name Elizth, & that, soon
before he went out of the Hospitall.” This terrible indict-
ment, of course, resulted in an oration to all the nurses about
the wickedness of “harbouring” their daughters in their
rooms. But the fault was not always with the “ Mathemat.”
He often found that he had to deal not only with his captain,
but with a “power behind” his captain. Take the comical
case of a boy called Burchard. He had been bound to
Admiral Sir Thomas Dilks, who died within two years. So
the Committee (November 19th, 1708) sent to ask Lady
Dilks for the lad’s indentures. “ But she hapned to be soo

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 123

indisposed that she could not be spoke with, but being
acquainted with the business by one of her servants, she
sent down word that she would not part with the Indenture,
and that she would send to Captain Hogg, Comander of
the Rupert (in which ship the said young man was entered)
to have him prickrun for absenting himself from on board
the said ship.” It is to be hoped for the boy’s sake that the
“ further measures ” taken by the Committee brought this
disconsolate widow to her senses.

Meanwhile there are signs of effort to make the education
of the “Mathemats” both more practical and more systematic.
In 1705 their schoolroom contained two full-rigged ships.
John Green was paid £6 for “the new Rigging of the Ship
which stands in a case in the Mathematicall Schoole ”
(February 16th, 1705), and “23 guinneys ” went to a man at
Woolwich for the construction of a new ship (March 16th,
1705). Mr. Ditton, one of the masters, had “a good pair
of globes” in prospect at a cost of £5, and was allowed
to buy them. As for the general system, of which an
account has already been given as it was laid down in
Dr. Wood’s time, it underwent a close revision in 1694-6,
apparently at Pagett’s suggestion and by the connivance
of Pepys. The advice of the Professors of Mathematics
at Oxford and Cambridge was sought for in the matter,
and Isaac Newton’s answer occupies eight closely written
pages (472-9) of the Committee Book. In it he criticises
the old scheme with some severity : it put Arithmetic much
too late, “ for a man may understand and teach Arithmetic
without any other skill in Mathematicks, as Writing Masters
usually doe, but without Arithmetick he can be skilled in
noe other part of Mathematicks.” In fact, he implies, several
articles of the former schedule seem out of place, as though
they “ set them downe by chance as they first thought upon
them,” and there is a great lack of good teaching in
Mechanics, in which connexion he refers to “ the great
advantage the French at present have above all other
nations in the goodness of their engineers.” The revised
scheme of 1696, drawn up by Sir Matthew Andrews, is as

I24 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

follows; and it will be noticed that Newton’s advice had
some effect ; indeed he came as a Governor and a member
of the Corhmittee of Schools to see the result at the
Visitation of September 1697.

‘ 1. Arithmetick in Integers, Vulgar & Decimal fractions,
the extraction of Roots, Square & Cube, & the use of
Logarithms.

‘ 2. The Principles of Geometry in the Delineation and
mensuration of Planes and Solids with the application
thereof.

‘3. Plain and spherical Trigonometry, Geometrically,
Arithmetically and instrumentally performed in all the
various cases of rectangular & obliquangular Triangles.

‘4. The use of the Globes Celestial & Terrestrial with
the stereographick projection of the sphere upon the plain
of any great circle.

‘ 5. Sphericall triangles applyed to the solution of all the
usefull problems in Astronomy for finding the suns ampli-
tude Azimuth and Variation of the Compass. As also to
the solution of all propositions in geography in all the
four various scituations of places, commonly called great
circle sayling.

‘6. Plainsayling (viz4) the construction and use of the
plain Sea Chart in all the cases thereof, the working of
Traverses, the solution of all plain Sayling questions
geometrically, Arithmethically & Instrumentally, with
absolute directions for keeping a Journall at Sea, and to
correct the Ships dead reckoning, by observing the Sun
or any fixed Starr upon the Meridian, with the application
of Plain Triangles to oblique Sailing, & the Doctrine of
Currents.

‘7. Mercators sailing to be done in all respects as Plain
Sailing in Article 6, — with the true use of the Logline &
| minute glass.

*8. To find the quantity of a degree upon any great
circle. The use of instruments proper for observing the
Ships latitude at Sea, As the Cross Staffe, Quadrant, and
other necessary Instruments as the Sector & Gunter’s
Ruler.

•g. The Construction & use of right-lined & circular
Mapps, the practice of Drawing for laying down the
appearances of Lands, Towns, and other objects of notice.

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 125

< 10. The use of the Calendar with the Common Rules
for finding the course of the Sun, Moon, & Tides, with
soo much of gunnery as is necessary for Sea Service.’

It is obvious that this second schedule means a consider-
able advance in the boys’ studies on the side of practical
navigation. The only difficulty was pointed out by
Isaac Newton, that the two years prescribed for it made
thoroughness almost impossible, and he expressed his regret
that under these circumstances “ four or five yeares of the
children’s time ” should be given to the learning of Latin.
This effort to maintain the classical standard of the
“ Mathemats ” has already been referred to, and it was
clearly not relaxed at the period with which we are dealing,
as several items on the minutes go to show. It was agreed
(January 29th, 1689) “that pursuant to the direction of Mr
John Flamsteed, a member of this House, each boy in the
Mathematicall Schoole, or in the Writing Schoole preparing
for the Mathematicall Schoole, shall have a Latine Testament
of Bezell’s [Beza’s] Translation, for the better preserving of
their Latine, when they are out of the Gramar Schoole.”
Possibly the young “ salts ” were not quite as diligent in
their reading of Holy Writ as the Committee hoped ; for
there is soon a further resolution (February 8th, 1692) that
“the Boyes in the Mathematicall Schoole from time to time
shall have Lattine Common Prayer bookes to make use
of at Church for preservation of their Lattine.” But it is
possible that Newton’s advice had some effect later. In
1708 the Hospital made its appearance as a book-publisher.
A few years earlier a certain Mr. Edward Brewster had
“bought and given to the use of the Hospitall” a book
called Synopsis Algebraica. The “ first impression ” was
reported to be “ now almost spent,” and the Committee
ordered Mr. Newton (i.e. Samuel Newton) and Mr. Ditton,
the master of the New Mathematical School, which had
been added to the original foundation by means of
Mr. Stone’s gift, to revise and correct the book, and

translate it into English , in order to have the same re-
printed and made of more generall and publick use.” It

126 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

was hoped (June 9th, 1708) that “the advantage arising
therefrom may defray the charge of the impression.” The
Committee ordered 750 copies in Latin and 1,000 in English,
Samuel Cobb, the under grammar master, receiving “ 10
guinneys” for his translation, and it was arranged to sell
the books to three specified booksellers at half a crown a
copy “in sheets.” It is a sign not only of their prudence
but of a relaxation of their classical zeal.

On the whole, then, it is clear that King Charles’
Foundation for its first thirty or forty years had a some-
what chequered success. It produced a number of “skilful
and knowing marriners ” (the phrase is Pagett’s), but it
did not add greatly to the personnel of the Royal Navy.
When Mr. Commissioner Pett wrote in 1695 from “ the
Navy Office” to inquire about “such children of the Royal
Foundation in Christ’s Hospitall that has attained to any
charge (either of Comander or Leiv1- Master or otherr
Commission or Warrant Officer) in his Maties Navy,” Mr.
Parrey was ordered to draw up a “ satisfactory answer.”
But he could not make bricks without straw, and, when
his report was presented, it was not “ soe satisfactory as
the Comee expects,” so they “ordered him to informe him-
self further.” The fact, of course, was that the regulations
of the Letters Patent, while good enough in themselves,
were often a hindrance to the obtaining of useful employ-
ment for the King’s boys. Thus in 1692 the Lords of

the Admiralty applied for some of them to be bound
apprentices to “ Mr Dummer, Master Builder of the King’s
Yard at Woolwich,” and were told that the “ Letters Patent
forbid it to any but Comanders of Ships.”

The inefficiency of the early teachers of the “ Mathemats ”
was redeemed by one famous appointment in the latter half
of the eighteenth century. They had been mathematicians.
William Wales was a sailor as well as a mathematician, and
to the ordinary observer the sailor in him was the more
obvious of the two. “All his systems,” says Lamb, whose
school days fell during the Wales regime (1775-98), “were
adapted to fit them for the rough element which they were

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 127

destined to encounter. . . . To make his boys hardy, and to
give them early sailor habits, seemed to be his only aim ;
and to do this everything was subordinate.” Which indeed
does the man much less than justice. For Wales’ sea-going
had been in a scientific direction. He had been sent by
the Royal Society to the Arctic Regions to observe a transit
of Venus in 1769 and he had sailed the Southern Seas with
Captain Cook. And a minute of 1786 shows that he was
impatient of anything in his department that was needlessly
antiquated. “Several of the Books and Charts, given to
the R.M.S. Boys at their going out,” he told the Governors,
“are useless on account of the great Improvements in the
Practice of Navigation.” “The Quadrants and other In-
struments given to them are of the most ordinary kind.”
At his instigation “ La Caille’s Astronomy , Atkinson’s
Epitome of Navigation , the Sea Gunner s Companion, the
Variation Chart, and the twelve-leav’d Book of Charts” were
discontinued, and the “ Price thereof, being about twenty-one
shillings,” was added to the value of the quadrant and other
instruments.

In regard to the relations between the boys and ships’
captains, the Governors must be given credit for endeavouring
to prevent abuses of various sorts. In 1719 they found that
“ Mathemats ” were promising themselves to serve com-
manders “without the privity or consent of the Treasurer,”
which “ not only tends greatly to the Corruption of the Boys,
but is a manifest contempt of the Government of the House.”
They therefore ordered that “ for the future the Master of
the Royal Math1 School shall not permitt any Governor
Capt or Comander of any ship, or any other on their Behalfe,
to come into his School to contract or agree with any of
his Boys,” without first consulting the Treasurer. At the
same time the commanders were told not to give “encourage-
ment to any boy ... to come on board [their] ship or
Vessell on pretence of seeing his schoolfellows.” Again, the
Governors endeavoured to secure for the boys such ships
as would give them a satisfactory training ; for example,
it was found in 1735 that the “Mathemats” were being

128 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

“ inveagled ” on to “ small coasting vessels and Store Ships of
120 or 130 Tons,” and so were “very often ill provided for” ;
whereupon it was agreed, though the rule was not universally
kept, that 200 Tons’ burden should be the lowest limit.
A still more serious evil came to the Governors’ notice in
1770. “Great misfortunes,” they found, “have happen’d
to several Boys, apprentices to Commanders of Guardships
in the Royal Navy, in which service the Boys cannot be
improved in the practice of Navigation, and likewise not
being fully employ’d idly spend great part of their time
on Shore in a seaport-town, in which situation they are
expos’d to great dangers which may unfortunately occasion
[their] ruin.” So they took the obvious remedy of forbidding
any “Mathemats” to be bound apprentices to port guardships
in future.

The greatest hindrance to the good reputation of the
“ Mathemats ” was not removed till the nineteenth century.
Their occasionally riotous and always insolent behaviour is
elsewhere alluded to. It was largely due to the fact that they
were herded together in one ward. There came a time
when only the principle of “Divide et Impera” could quell
them. The late Canon Buckle not long before his death
was kind enough to give me his recollections on the subject.
He happened about 1830 to be placed in “No. 1,” from
which the unruly sea-urchins had been recently expelled.
“Naturally,” wrote Canon Buckle, “they thought themselves
fine fellows, affected the traditionary bluntness of sea
manners, and looked down on the rest of the school as
their inferiors.” Rumour said that strange doings and wild
licence went on in “No. 1” ward. Anyhow they were
“ scattered ” among the rest of the wards. Canon Buckle
added that the Nurse, “Mother Robinson,” a stout and
vigorous old lady, preserved to the last her regret for the
piping times, when she had been responsible for the Mathe-
matical crew. The “ King’s School ” lost its unruly prestige
after this revolutionary change, though “Blues” still living
can remember the ferocious vigour with which they went
round the wards at certain seasons, crying, “ Who’s for the
Royal Mathematical School ? ”

Till-: king’s foundation

stone’s FOUNDATION

stock’s foundation

BADGES

FROM PHOTOGRAPHS I. ENT BY “ NAVY AND AKRIY H.I.USTRATED "

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 129

But, considering how much of the history of the “ Mathe-
mats” belongs to the region of the heroic and romantic,
it will be well to drop suddenly into the indubitable and dry-
as-dust statements of a Royal Commissioners’ report. In the
fourth year of King William IV. Christ’s Hospital saw the
first appointment of Charity Commissioners, of whom two,
Mr. Wrottesley and Mr. Smith, presented their report in the
first year of Queen Victoria, indeed ten days after her acces-
sion to the throne. They, of course, devote some space
to King Charles’ Foundation, and this is the gist of their
account. They found the school in February 1837 under
the charge of “ Mr Webster,” who had lately been promoted
from the Junior Mathematical Mastership in succession to
the Rev. G. J. Brookes. “ Webster” is still a name to conjure
with to Blues who are now getting on in life, and there are
some who tell you that the visions of their head about their
bed still trouble them the night before the morning on which
they used to be “ in to Webster.” The Commissioners found
under Mr. Webster 40 “King’s” or “Royal” boys, and 10
under Stone’s gift ; the two places under Stock’s gift were
both vacant, and on the foundations of Travers and Holditch
there were only 39 instead of 50. They found the custom
to be that boys were admitted to the “ Mathemat ” from the
rest of the school on their own or their parents’ application,
that the limits of age were eleven and twelve and a half
years, and that the first step in the sea-going Blue’s career
was to join Mr. Stone’s foundation. At the same time,
as certain special advantages were assured, it was demanded
that the parents should enter a special bond with the Lord
Mayor, as titular trustee, that the boy should behave decently
and obey the rules of the school, and that within one month
after passing his examination before the Master of the
Trinity House he should be apprenticed to the Sea-service
in some form or other, as might be agreed upon between the
ship-master and the Governors. The Commissioners also
give details of the studies pursued in the school. Thus,
if a Stone’s boy in half a year worked his arithmetical way
“ from the rule of three to cube root inclusive,” he was

130 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

certain of ultimately becoming a “King’s boy”; otherwise
he lost his chance. The moment he had learnt some Euclid
he entered the magic circle of “the forty.” The books and
employments of these latter are given by the Commissioners
in some detail. “ Bonnycastle’s Algebra, Bland’s Equations,
and Wood’s or Hind’s Algebra” ; “plane trigonometry, plane
and globular sailing, spherical trigonometry, the use of the
globes, problems on the sphere, and nautical astronomy,
including the use of the Nautical Almanac, the quadrant,
sextant, and azimuth compass,” for Lord Kelvin was still
in his earlier “teens.” The class-books in geography,
grammar, and general knowledge included “ Simson’s Euclid,
a M.S. plane, and a M.S. spherical trigonometry, Robertson’s
Inman’s, and Riddle’s Treatises on Navigation, Pinnock’s
Catechism of Geography, Guthrie’s Grammar of Geography,
Butler’s Atlas, Goldsmith’s Grammar and English History,
and Hume’s History.” The “Mathemats” occupied a consider-
able portion of the drawing-master’s time, and apparently
wanted more technical instruction than he was able to give
them ; still they received training in the construction of
naval charts, maps, and plans, the drawing of ships, head-
lands, lines of coast, etc. In “perspective” they had to be
content with general rules. A “ tolerable chart and black-
lead drawing ” formed the limit with the majority, but some
“ attained sufficient proficiency to enter upon water-colours.”
As to the output of boys at this time, the Commissioners
express it in terms of twenty in each period of two years,
an average of five after each half-yearly examination. It is
noted also that Trinity House had passed all the boys sent
up by Mr. Webster. At the same time, owing to illness or
other causes, the number of “ King’s boys ” sometimes fell
short, and the quota to be sent to sea was made up by
including youngsters under fifteen. Also “ the other causes ’
must be confessed to have included shuffling, for, as we have
seen, the Supplementary Act of Charles II. allowed each
boy £37 as wages ; some of them made sure of their
wages and made flotsam of their work. It was therefore
arranged that one year’s instalment should be paid when

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 131

the indentures were signed ; the balance was only given
when at the end of three years the “ Mathemat” came back
with his log-book and journals, and satisfied the master of
his knowledge of navigation.

As to the general success of these lads the Commissioners
are not very enthusiastic. Many of them had done well, but
“ many are not so fortunate as to gain a situation worthy
of their attainments and the care bestowed on their in-
struction.” It is remarkable and hardly complimentary to
the Royal Foundation that the Crown had never up to
1837, and still less since, put in a claim to the seventh
year of the “ Mathemats’ ” sea-service, as arranged for in
Charles II.’s Letters Patent. However hardly it might fall
on a ship-master to have his complement lessened by the
Admiralty exercising their right, the “ King’s boys ” would
certainly have benefited by such an official acknowledgment
of their existence and their use. Many of the lads rose
to eminence in the naval service of “John Company,” notably
Captain Shea, whose portrait hangs in the Court Room and
who became a Governor and Almoner, bequeathing to the
Hospital several pictures of the person and exploits of the
famous Commodore Sir Nathaniel Dance. But the abolition
of the grade of “Master” in the Royal Navy, and the
expenses connected with cadetships have made it necessary
as a rule for “ Blues ” to seek entrance as assistant-clerks
or engineer-students, where they render useful service but
stop short of fame. The latest figures show that the in-
struction they receive has redeemed the discredit of the first
mathematical masters. Thirty-eight boys have entered the
Royal Navy since 1882. Of these, eight gained cadetships,
nine qualified as engineer students and twenty-one as assistant
clerks. In the same period more than seventy have joined
the Merchant Service, of whom two have obtained com-
missions in the Navy and several are members of the Royal
Naval Reserve.

The 1890 scheme of the Charity Commissioners at first
neglected the “King’s School” altogether. It permitted it to
exist but made no provision for filling it with boys. The

132 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Commissioners have since been induced to repair their
mistake, and the Council of Almoners may now assign forty
places in the Hospital to boys who are the sons of com-
missioned officers in the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, or
the Royal Naval Reserve, whose services are certified by the
Admiralty to have been satisfactory, and such boys may
on the application of their parents enter the Royal Mathema-
tical School. The Almoners will naturally give a preference
to the sons of the widows of such officers, if they are in
straitened circumstances. There is a further provision for
the admission of the children of those officers who have been
“ distinguished ” in the service of the Crown, but the word
is taken to mean that they must have been at least “men-
tioned in despatches.”

This chapter began by noticing that the difference between
a “Mathemat” and the ordinary “Blue” lies in the badge.
But there are differences of badges yet to be noticed. The
40 “ King’s boys ” wear a disc, bearing, as already stated,
the loyal if not wholly merited legend “Auspicio Carol i
Secundi Regis.” It shows a miniature “Mathemat” sur-
rounded by the three graces of Arithmetic, Astronomy, and
Geometry, with a ship under full sail and two little cherubs
who “ sit up aloft.” Other foundations were “ grafted ” on to
King Charles’ “stock.” Henry Stone’s, whose constitution
gave such trouble to Mr. Pepys, was marked by a badge
bearing his name and the legend, “Numero, Pondere et
Mensura,” and three boys at a table with a figured scroll,
a balance, and a compass. The Governors in 1716 expressed
their thanks to Sir Isaac Newton for giving this “dye.” The
one boy endowed in 1722 by Viscount Lanesborough was
not distinguished by any badge. The contemporary founda-
tion of Mr. Samuel Travers has been distinguished not by
a badge but by a buckle, but since 1815 the benefits of
Travers’ gift have been separated from the Royal Mathe-
matical School and devoted to the purpose of teaching
mathematics to the boys of the Upper Grammar School.
A third badge, whose use has almost lapsed, belonged to two
boys nominated by the Admiralty in accordance with the

THE MATHEMATICAL SCHOOL 133

bequest in 1782 of Mr. John Stock. It bore the figure of
Britannia with an anchor, ships, merchandise, and the legend
“ Prosperitas Navibus Magnae Britanniae.”

These badges were at first made of silver. The boys had
to wear them not only at school but during their apprentice-
ship, and they were a potent charm against the blandishments
of the press-gang. But, as gently hinted elsewhere, they
were a source of temptation, seeing that they could be left
with an “ uncle ” for five shillings, and copper was ultimately
substituted for silver. It was, however, the custom until quite
recently to present a “Mathemat” on leaving with a badge in
silver.

One other matter connected with the King’s Foundation
must not be omitted, namely their once regular appearance
before the Sovereign to show themselves, their charts and
drawings. It is probable that the subject of Verrio’s great
canvas in the Hall is a combination of two events, the pre-
sentation of the Charter by Charles II. and this annual
appearance of the “ Mathemats ” at Court. The idea both
of the picture and of the “ going to Court ” was doubtless
due to Pepys ; for it was announced to the Committee in
1681 that “Esq Pepys” had “spoken with Seignior Vario,
Painter,” who was “ preparing a model ” and would “ present
the draught thereof.” And among Pepys’ correspondence is
a letter dated February 17th, 1682, in which he writes to
Alderman Sir Thomas Beckford, asking for the loan of his
gown “for Signior Vario, the King’s painter, to make use
of in the picture.” Charles was nothing loth to have his
own foundation brought yearly to his notice, and the cere-
mony was associated with New Year’s Day. The following
minute of December 1682 will show the procedure : that
“a list of the Mathematical children be presented to his
gracious Matlc the Ist day of January next according to
former usage — alsoe that another be presented to His Royal
Higness James Duke of Yorke ...” that “all the Committee
should be summoned to appeare the same day in their gowns
at Whitehall, not only to deliver the said lists but also to
show the Forty children now of his Matiea Royall Foundation

134 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

to his gracious Matie and the Duke of Yorke.” They also
requested the Lord Mayor to be present “if his ocoasions
will give him leave.” In 1687 the lists were written and
“painted” at a cost of £7, and in December 1690 Pagett,
the Master, got into disgrace for not having “ made prepara-
tion for the boyes to make exercises being draughts of Charts
and Landskips &c against New Yeares Day.” He replied
that he had not been paid for it, and was consoled with “ 25
guyneys.” The date of this incident implies that William III.
had continued the custom of his predecessors, and had there-
fore shown that in November 1688 the Committee need not
have hesitated as to whether they had better wait upon him.
The “neglect of their duty” recorded against two beadles
in January 1725 is noted in a connexion which shows that
“ going to Court ” was not all that was expected of the King’s
boys ; for these beadles did not attend “ in due time when
[the Governors] waited upon the Lords of the Admiralty
wth the Boys of the Royall Mathematicall School, by reason
whereof they could not pay the usuall respect to their Lord-
ships by presenting them with the Books of the names of
the boys.” This visit to “ My Lords ” may also have been
instigated by Mr. Pepys, but there is no record of its long
continuance. But “going to Court” — save during the later
years of Queen Victoria’s lifetime — has been perpetual, and
will no doubt be resumed under his present Majesty.

Note. — Verrio’s picture was not completed till 1690. The price
was settled in November 1684, when he told the Committee “he
would doe it soe well that, if any artist that should see it did not
say it was worth one thousand pounds, he would give the poore of
this Hospital one hundred pounds,” and, being pressed “to express
himself more plainely, he agreed to ^300 by instalments. In
February 1685 he “proposed to make some alteration of the said
designe in regard his Matie King Charles the Second of blessed
memory is lately deceased.” Mr. C. W. Carey, who is now bringing
the canvas back from its varnished obscurity, believes that the
central figure is James II. This may, of course, be Verrio’s
intended “alteration,” but in 1687 the minutes still speak of it
as “ his late Matie“ picture.”

CHAPTER VII

THE MUSIC SCHOOL

“ Seraphs ! around th’ Eternal’s seat who throng
With tuneful ecstasies of praise :

Oh ! teach our feeble tongues like yours the song
Of fervent gratitude to raise.”

Coleridge, C. H. Easter Anthem, 1789.

THE teaching of music at our Hospital began with its
earliest times and has never ceased. It is true that
music as a profession was not always held in the highest
esteem within our walls, for in 1569 it was “agrede by the
consent of this courte that from henceforthe none of the
children harbored and kept in this Hospitall be put apprentis
to any Musissioner othere than suche as be blinde or Lame
and not able to be put to other Trades.” Still, as has been
already recorded, John Howes states definitely that among
the first set of officers and masters chosen there was “ a
schoole-maister for Musicke,” further described as “ a teacher
of pricksonge whose yerely fee was £2. 13.4.” But Howes
does not give his name, as he does in other cases, and in the
first batch of payments to the staff in the Annual Account
of 1553 no separate mention is made of the Music Master.
The natural inference is that, as John Watson, the Clerk, also
taught writing, so some other master doubled the part of
“song school” teacher. Unfortunately, after giving the
names of the staff on the occasion of the first payment,
the Annual Account henceforth contents itself with a state-
ment of the total sum distributed to them each pay-day, but
from other entries half a century later it is fairly clear that
the succession had been maintained. Robert Dow in his
indenture, of which an account will be given directly, lays

1 35

1 36 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

the credit for the Music teaching at the door of Mr. Edmond
Howes “by reason of his singular zeal and integrity to
Christ’s Hospital.” This Edmond Howes was joint-tenant
with his father, John Howes, of “a tenement at the West
gate of this Hospitall,” and was baptised at Christ Church
on July 19th, 1562; so that he can only be associated with
the subsequent revival of interest in the Music School, which
characterised the first years of the seventeenth century.
The Court Book shows that singing masters were then
appointed as a matter of course. Thus in March 1606
“there is graunted to one William Meacocke one of the
singing men in Christ Church the yearely stipend of xl8 for
ye instructing of diverse of ye children of this house in the
art of Musick as Robart Browne late Blinde (?) dec'1 injoyed.”
But in a few months Meacocke was promoted to the Cathedral
choir and then (June 10th, 1607) appeared “John ffarrand,
Clarke of Great St. Bartholomewes neere to West Smithfield,
being a suiter for the instructinge and teachinge of the Children
of this house in the arte of Musicke, for that there is one
Wm Meacocke one of the Singinge men of Paulis who should
performe ye same, but dooth neglecte his dutye therein.” In
the end Meacocke was “utterly discharged” and Farrant
began a long connexion with the music of the Hospital at
the same salary “ as ye sayd Meacocke and others in like
manner before him did receiue.” Farrant was, it would seem,
a far greater success than his predecessors, at any rate during
the earlier years of his work. At the end of eighteen months
he applied for “ a rise,” and his salary was promptly doubled,
with this proviso that he “ shall alwayes instruct eight of ye
children of this house in Musicke and shall accompany ye
children of this house to ye Burials* of all such persons where-
unto ye children of this house shall be required.”

It is at this point that we are introduced to Mr. Robert
Dow (or Dowe). He was keenly interested in the Singing
School, and he determined to do for it what Lady Ramsey
had done for the WViting, and what Thomas Barnes and
Richard Aldworth would later on do for the Reading and

* See below, p. 228.

THE WRITING MASTER'S (NOW THE WARDEN’S) HOUSE

THE MUSIC SCHOOL 137

the Mathematical Schools. His proposal is set forth in an
indenture dated February 8th, 1609. After reciting that the
Governors of the Hospital, “being desirous that the poor
children of the said House might be instructed ... in the
knowledge of pricksongs have lately entertained one John
Farrant, being learned in music, for that purpose, and have
agreed to allow him yearly the sum of foure pounds,” it
states that Dow felt the sum to be very small ; therefore,
“ having a pityful commiseration of the poor children, and
to the intent to encourage skilful teachers to do their best
endeavour in the instructing” them “in the Heavenly Science
of Music,” he was willing, for God’s service and their advance-
ment, to add ^12 a year to the music master’s stipend, and
hoped “ that God will put in the heart of some good man ”
to make the £\6 up to £20. The covenant thereupon
entered into bound the governing body, after Farrant’s
death, to “ provide one sufficient man skilful in Music, being
a Bachelor or Widower without children, for avoiding of
charge to the hospital, and not being any vicar, petty canon,
nor clerk or sexton of any church, nor holding any other
temporal office.” This master, he goes on, is to “ teach the
art of music to 10 or 12 only of the said children,” and to
“ train them up in the knowledge of prickesong,” and teach
them “ to write and make them able to sing in the Quier
of Christ Church.” They are to attend there “every Sunday
and every holyday and their vigils.” In choosing his
scholars, the master may pick from “ all the schools and
offices ” of the hospital, “ except only out of the Compting
House, Ward-robe, and Grammar-school,” in regard to which
permission must be obtained. “ And whereas the children
in general go to burials,” one half of the singing children,
at the discretion of the master, must be left behind, that his
school may not be empty, “ unless it be a special or double
burial.” The singing-master must teach the singing-children
their catechism. They shall always be at his command,
lodging in “ the high ward,” while the master occupied
specified apartments under the Counting House, together
with a small garden. The singing-children are to go before

13B ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

the President and Governors half-yearly, that they may “see
and hear how far ” they “ have profitted.” “ For ever,” he
goes on, “ against the Nativity of our Saviour,” six shillings
and eightpence must be yearly spent in gloves; “that is to
say twelve pair of gloves for the poor Singing Children
of sixpence a pair,” and one pair “of Eightpence” for their
master. Moreover, if any of these various conditions should
fail to be observed, the Governors are to hand over the
whole endowment to the Merchant Taylors’ Company for
their almshouses.

In 1611 Dow indented a further deed, increasing the
master’s salary to £ 20 and directing that, in considera-
tion of the increase, he should teach “ three or four ” of
the dozen children “ to play upon an instrument, as upon
the Virginalls or Violl, but especially upon the Virginalls,
thereby to adorne their voice and make them worthy members
both for the Church and the Commonweale ” ; and “ for the
better furtherance thereof the said Robert Dow hath provided
and bought two pair of Virginalls and a Bass-Violl and hath
set them up within the School-house.” John Farrant him-
self had not been idle, but “sithence his coming to that
place hath pricked divers services very fit for the Quire at
Christ Church into eight several books together with an
Organ Book.” Dow paid him £5 for these, and the
total cost of the “Virginalls Violls and Books &c.” was
“ ten pounds six shillings and sixpence. And more thirteen
shillings and fourpence for mending and tuning the Organs
in Christ Church.” The singing-master was also to be
present morning and afternoon in Christ Church, and at the
end of the sermons “usually preached in the Upper Church”
was to play the Psalms sung by the people, “ thereby to keep
them in time and tune to the better setting forth of the
praise of almighty God.”

In addition to the £240, Dow offered ,£72 for the up-keep
of the instruments he had provided ; and the Governors
were inclined to think this sum “somewhat to small con-
sidering that this house must at all times hereafter for Ever
repaire and maintaine the said instrument.” They bluntly

THE MUSIC SCHOOL

i39

suggested that Dow should make it £80, which he promptly
agreed to do, and thus the Music School obtained a fresh
lease of life on most favourable terms. But, alas! in 1613
John Farrant, whose advance from a salary of ^4 a year
to one of £ 20 had perhaps been too much for him, fell
under the grievous displeasure of the vicar of Christ Church,
Mr. Marshall, who came with his curate and his “clarke”
to make “ diverse complaintes of ye ill caryage and behavior ”
of the Music Master, of his “ neglecte of his dutie in not
singing in y° church as he ought to doe,” and even of his
“ outragious dealinge and misdemeanours in ye Church.”
The vicar was willing to have overlooked all this, “ so as
hee would have submitted himselfe and have binne sorry.”
But Farrant refused to apologise, and so the Committee
had to deal with it. To the vicar’s indictment they added
the statement that the music master “hath demeaned
himself very badly towards ye Government of this house,
abusing ye Gouernours.” So poor Farrant ate very humble
pie indeed, and was forgiven, as most of the Hospital’s
servants have been, — till next time. Probably, though an
awkward customer, he was a fair musician and teacher.
But his “ next time ” soon came, and was sooner repeated.
In January 1616 he sent a message to say that he was
“arrested for debte” and was “in ye Compter in Wood
Street ” ; in fact, he wanted to resign his office, not because
of his debts, but “ in regard hee is very hard of hearing
and his sight doth decay and his whole body is so weake
and feeble.” Yet he still held on, and in November was
quarrelling with the system by which certain boys were
appointed to learn to play the organ in Christ Church,
according to the will of Mr. William Parker. But two
years more were enough for him, and in January 1618 he
resigned. The arrangement made with him appears
generous enough to warrant the idea that he had really
done good service. The Governors “ graunted him during
his life in regard of his paines taken eleaven pounds pr. ann.
and fourtie shillings for provision of wood and coles. All
which being thirteen pounds is to bee paid by’ five shillings

Ho ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

weekly; and likewise for his lodging that he should have
a little room joyning yc ICitchin, and yv Kitchin itselfe to
dresse his meate during his life. And a way to be made
to ye same thorough ye garden.” No wonder that Farrant
took quite a fresh lease of life. His interest in his
office remained meanwhile as keen as ever. I find in the
minutes of the vestries of Christ Church a “Memorandum
that Mr John ffarrant did deliver to us David Buckley
Churchwarden and William Wyles Clarke for the use of
Christ Church as a Gifte given Eight Synginge Books and
an Organ Booke bound in Parchment and a blacke Boxe
to put them in the ffirst daye of October 1622.” His
successor, Ravenscroft, came and went, and yet another,
Thomas Peirce (or Pierce); but his conduct roused Farrant’s
wrath, so that he went to the Court and complained that
Peirce does not “holy and solely apply himselfe in the
instructing of the children,” but “ hath another place in
the King’s Chappell,” and, still worse, is married, which
was the very catastrophe that Robert Dow wanted to avert
from all his “song schoole maisters.” So Farrant, after
seven years’ retirement on account of old age, clamoured
to be taken on again, and as the Court had to confess
that his teaching had been better than that of any of his
successors, he got his way. Peirce and he, according to
the Treasurer’s compromise, were to divide the hours of
teaching till Lady Day 1625, in order that the children
might be “ perfect for the singing of the Psalme at Easter.”
Thereafter, Farrant once more ruled alone, except perhaps
in his own house, where “ some difference hapned ” between
him and his wife, and he lasted for another nine years.
In March 1634 he is described as an “aged maister,” too
“ sicke and weake ” to select his substitute, yet not so
thoughtless as to pass him on any of his salary, and about
December 1634 he died, much to the satisfaction of Humphry
Sempar, who had done his work, and who succeeded to his
post. Then, for a while, the Song School did nothing to
add to the Court’s business, till the days of Richard Watkins,
one of the bullies with whom periodically every governing

I-HOTOUKAFM BY THE REV. D. F. HEYIVOOD

THE MUSIC SCHOOL 141

body has to deal. “ We finde,” they said in 1638, that
the print of his ffingers hath bene seene on one of the
childrens cheeks,” and “that he hath beaten another child
with a road ouer the face.” His dismissal was deferred,
but he took to the use of “roapes” and “ Crabstickes,”
not to speak of his boots, till on June 15th came the terrible
news that a child “ lyeth sicke of the small-pox in the sick
ward,” who “ is conceived to have fallen into the sicknes
with his [the master’s] misusage and in greate dainger of
death.” Then, not too soon, Richard Watkins was allowed
to resign.

The only topic of interest in regard to Thomas Brewer,
who came after him, was that he was “ sometimes a child
of this house,” and probably had learnt music in Robert
Dow’s foundation. But he, too, married a wife, and
“ comitted some errors and alsoe misdemeanours himselfe ” ;
so he was told that he must leave at Christmas (1641), and
that his wife must be out of the premises before Michaelmas.
In after years the Governors provided against any such
matrimonial complications by compelling the Song School
Master to give a bond in £ 200 “ that when it is proved
that he is married he shall resigne up the said office.”

In Dow’s covenant there is a characteristic provision that
the singing-master may have eight or ten pupils “ not of the
Hospital,” in order “to do the better in his place and to
increase his profit, like is used and accustomed with the
Grammar Teachers and other Schoolmasters of the said
house.” But, even with this permission, it can hardly be said
that the Music Master was overworked ; indeed, nothing but
capable and enthusiastic teachers was needed to produce
in the Hospital an effective and creative musical life. It
is doubtful whether this was at all realised. The Governors
did their part in providing the plant. Besides the organ
in Christ Church, to which the Music Master had access,
there was also an organ in the Hall as early as 1673 ; for
in that year (September 16th) “ Mr White Organ maker . . .
did desire that he might have the monies due to Mr Dallum
who made the Organ in the greate Hall,” and had since

142 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

died. In 1690 this organ wanted attention, and the Treasurer
was asked to treat with “ Mr Harris ” with a view to his
cleaning it and taking it in charge. Clearly this was the
great Renatus Harris, who, it will be remembered, received
a commision (of laughable consequences) to build an organ
for the new St. Paul’s and who also was responsible for
the instrument in Christ Church. Again, in 1695, Harris
reported on the Hall organ and drew special attention to the
abundance of dust and “ the soe frequent raising of it by the
almost continuall concourse of the children.” It would cost,
he said, quite £30 to clean it. But he could not resist the
chance of a thrust at another builder. “ Its pitch,” he argued,
“ is so sharp and so much above the reach of the children’s
voices that it causes in them an unnaturall squeeling, when-
ever they endeavour to reach a high note.” The children
could not play it because its “ touch is soe stiff and uneven,”
nor could the Music Master, Mr. Browne, for that reason
exhibit “ that Mastry and ffreedome that might otherwise
be expected from him.” Renatus was willing to put all
this right for £25, and professed that he would not do it
“ in any Cathedral or Parish Church in England under the
summe of one hundred pound ” ; but he wanted thus to
show his “ great affection and respect ” for the foundation.
This work he carried out, and Mr. Gerhard Disseneer, organist
of St. Giles’ in the Fields, having reported favourably upon it,
the money was paid. This was in July 1696, but Harris was
not yet content. The Music Master had long wanted what
the Minutes call a “ Chaire-Organ ” ; he had consulted
“ Mr Christian Smith an organ maker” about it in 1693,
but it was Harris to whom the work fell in 1697, and over
this choir organ he quarrelled almost as hotly as he had
with the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s. For it was re-
ported to the Committee in July that he “hath by some
means or other made the said organ useless, upon account
of some money remaining due to him ; whereupon the
Committee told him that “if he did not forthwith cause
the said organ to be made usefull,” or take it away alto-
gether and return the money, they would go to law. Hairis

THE MUSIC SCHOOL 143

“seemed to be somewhat surprised, ” and had the sense to
take what he could get for his work.

That the Governors were determined to have something
more than what they called a Song School is shown by their
anxiety to have Mr. Parker’s bequest for organ teaching
faithfully carried out, a matter to which their attention
was frequently directed by the parish of Christ Church, as
the following extract from the parochial records will testify : —

‘ At a Vestrie houlden the XVIIIth day of January Anno
Dni 1624 amongst other things it was ordered that whereas
Mr William Parker about eight years past of his free bounty
for the p’petuall maintenance of an Organist in this Church
gave Twoo Hundred poundes in money, to pay Tenne
Poundes yeerely for ever to an Organist in this Church ;
with desire that if either nowe or at any tyme hereafter
there were any Childe of the singinge Schoole of Christe
Hospitall fytt and capeable for an Organist in this Church,
That then in the tyme of vacancie hee should be preferred to
the place of Organist before any other, duly p’fourming the
service of the same accordinge to the custome of this church
and the Canons Ecclesiasticall,

‘And forasmuch as at this present there is one Lawrence
Hall lately trayned up in the foresaid singinge schoole, he
is now growen capeable of the foresayd place of Organist ;
and at his humble suite, together with the true meaninge
of the ffounder, the desire of the Treasorer and Gouernors
of Christe Hospitall, and the consent of the parish by this
Vestrie houlden the day and yeere above sayd, that the sayd
Lawrence Hall should be receaued and admytted Organist
of this Church.’

Richard Browne, who was music master for many years
towards the end of the seventeenth century, besides being
a “very passionate man,” who “did frequently sweare and
use ill language to the children,” was sharply reminded
in 1690 of his duty “to instruct two of the boyes now under
his care to play the tunes of all the Psalms and a Voluntary
on the Organs in Christ Church as soon as may be.” John
Barrett, who was “ pitcht upon ” to succeed Browne, was called
to book on the same account in 1699, but pleaded that he had
one boy “that can play on the Organ and hath done it

144 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

several 1 times in the great Hall.” Long before this, in
January 1684, it was “moved that the Musick Master might
be oblidged to teach some children upon the Violin, and that
once a fortnight on a Wednesday night the boyes soe taught
might sing (? play) in parts with the organe with as many
other children as can be taught to sing in part, which was
well liked, and Sir Matthew Andrews said he would give one
violin and Esqr Tench two.”

But, even with the “ chaire-organ ” and the violins and the
succession of professional teachers in sole charge of twelve
picked boys, it can scarcely be said that the foundation
justified Robert Dow’s hopes of it. Here, as with the
Mathematical School, the fault lay at the door of the
masters. Sometimes they were bullies like Mr. Browne,
whose “servant” ( i.e . assistant teacher) left him in terror
and had to be “put in the Gazette, that soe it might be
knowne what was become of him ” (July 4th, 1689); some-
times the “quarter’s sailary” was suspended, the Governors
“ having some suspition ” that the master was “ negligent
in his business.” But the records show no sign that the
School was a nursing mother of great executants or original
composers, and whereas a Grammar School boy frequently
produced the libretto of the Easter Anthem and got it
accepted by the Court, it appears to have been always the
Song School Master and not his pupils who provided the
score. In modern times the barrenness of the music teaching
of the Hospital is excusable enough ; for specialism is crowded
out by much else and the music is a mere p ar ergon ; but in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it was the whole
existence of the Song School boys. One cannot help feeling
that if Mr. Pepys could have been in the Science and Art
Department at South Kensington instead of Secretary to
“ My Lords ” at Whitehall, he would have interfered in the
Music School with the same persistence as he did in the
“ Mathemat ” ; for Pepys fancied himself in music both as
a judge and as a performer.

It would be well if one could hope to see this musical
foundation of the seventeenth century revived into a useful

THE MUSIC SCHOOL

i45

existence in the Christ’s Hospital of the future. The West
Horsham plans included a separate hall for music, but it
has been “written off” as a luxury. Still, with the old organ
of the great Hall reconstructed at considerable cost, and with
the new organ which the generosity of an anonymous donor
is providing for the Horsham Chapel, the school will not lack
the “plant.” The rest must depend upon the teachers, and
it may not be amiss to direct attention to points which arise
out of this sketch of the Song School. Robert Dow un-
questionably preferred a choir of twelve, if it were good all
through, to a fortuitous concourse of sixty or seventy vocal
atoms. The one was better calculated to lead the singing
than the other. And he was anxious that the purpose set
before them should be the reverent and effective musical
rendering of Divine Service, at a time when the national
school of Cathedral music — almost the only national music
we possess — was rising towards its zenith. Our Music School
can still have no worthier ambition.

CHAPTER VIII.

WRITING, READING, AND DRAWING

“ He desired to see my writing : I showed him some ; he might have read it
by the light of my blushes.”— Coleridge (letter from C. H. to his brother,
May 17th, 1791).

LACED as it is in the midst of a commercial com-

munity, Christ’s Hospital has from the first extended
to its sons the benefit of a commercial education, and few
schools have turned out better penmen than some of our
“ Blues.’’ The first list of the staff contained “ a teacher to
write,” though he combined with his teaching the office of
Clerk to the Governors. It also contained two elementary
teachers — “ Schoole-Maisters for the Betties, A. B. C.” — of
whom one, Thomas Cutts, seems to have been also Clerk to
the parish of Christ Church; while in 1570 it is on record
that “ Robert Browne Schole Mr of the pettite is admitted
to the Barbers rome of this house in the Lewe of Robert
ffoster who late had the same and for that he never wold
shave the childrens hede he is dismissed.” But, however
humble its teachers may have been, the Writing School soon
came under the favour of the benevolent. Dame Ramsey,
the almost “ universal provider,” to whom the pick of the
Grammar School have always been so much indebted in the
matter of exhibitions tenable at the universities, and whose
rectory of Colne Engaine sheltered them in after life, was
the virtual foundress of the Writing School. It appears to
have been started in 1577, the year her husband, Sir Thomas
Ramsey, was “ Maior of thys most famous cittie”; which
may account for the fact that her will, dated January 1596)

THE WRITING SCHOOL

146

WRITING, READING, DRAWING 147

gave £ 20 a year to “ maintain in the said hospital a writing-
school, with a master and usher, to teach as well poor men’s
children of the city of London as children of the said
hospital to write and cast accounts.” Naturally, her name
was long associated with the office, and even when things
begin to settle down again after the Restoration and the
Court Books give a careful list of the staff as it was in 1662,
“ Mr Jonathan Pickes” is still called “Master of the Lady
Ramsies Writing Schoole.” The original elementary teach-
ing was in existence at the same time, for we are given in
1661 the names of the master and usher of “ye A. B. C.
Schoole,” which, so far as I have been able to search, does
not appear again. No doubt it was merged in the larger
School, which contained in 1662 170 boys, and was evi-
dently overcrowded, so that there was a proposal that the
usher should have a Writing School to himself in a room
under the ordinary schoolroom, and take on the charge of
half the pupils. It is also clear that the staff was very
inadequate. Poor Jonathan Pickes came to the Court a
couple of years after the Fire and poured out a doleful tale.
He had been “35 years a servant and Writeing Master in
this House,” and pleaded that “by reason of the two great
judgments of the visitacon and fire, and having xi in family
to maintaine and paying of rent, taxes, and other duties,”
he was £30 in debt ; and the good Governors, knowing that
even a younger man could scarce teach to any purpose with
such a load round his neck, paid his debts, promised him
£10 a year towards his rent, and were willing to give him
£13 6s. 8 d. a year “towards the keepeing of any servant
whome he should choose to assist him in the affaires of this
Hospitall.” He accepted this, and took to himself an
honorary colleague, one Richard Gutter, whose origin is
perhaps set forth in his name, and who was more than
content to be “ dyetted and clothed.” In 1674 Gutter was
translated, on a report that he was “ of good life and
conversation,” to be assistant to the Mathematical Master,
which is at least some warrant for his having other attain-
ments than mere caligraphy. And that is more, apparently,

i4» ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

than can be said for some of the masters, let alone the
ushers. They taught their pupils to write and to read, but
even elementary arithmetic was hardly their strong point.
Take the sad story of Mr. William James. Just before the
great Fire he had fallen into disgrace with Mr. Shadrach
Helmes, the Upper Grammar Master (1662-78). After the
Fire, the Hospital was almost depleted, and, in the general
lack of funds, it was decided to dispense with Mr. James’s
services altogether, the Court no doubt bearing in mind
that Mr. Helmes had reported him for having “absented
himselfe from his schoole severall dayes, being oftentymes
very much disguised with Drinke.” But the Governors’
memory was short, and, another vacancy occurring in the
Writing School in 1674, James and another were candidates,
and were “ caused to write ” before the Committee, “ the
which writeing they very well approved.” William Gibbon,
the Treasurer, seems to have carried the day in favour of
James by the “great character” which he gave of him.
Alas ! it was worth no more than most testimonials, and
a year later a sub-committee is examining James, who is
reported to have resumed his former “disguise.” He does
not deny it for a moment ; sometimes he “ was soe.” But
he gets off with extenuating circumstances on the plea that
“ when he was soe, he had soe much discretion to hide it
from the children of this House.” This was in August, and
his respite was brief. His “disguise” might be overlooked,
but a dreadful rumour reached the Committee that he could
not teach Arithmetic. So they had him up once more in
December of the same year. “ Being demanded whether
he could teach comon Arithmetick, that is the plaine Rule
of three, he made but very slender answere to it and told
them that if he was deficient in Arithmetick he would make
it his business for the time to come to enforme himselfe
better in it. The Committee put a Question in Arithmetick
to him which he could not doe, and for that reason that he
is not skilled in Arithmetick and for that the Children have
been very much neglected, the Committee reporte his in-
sufficiency.” The Court was of the same mind and

WRITING, READING, DRAWING 149

sentenced him to “come noe more into the said Schoole
after Christmas Day.” In February 1676, thanks to “a
letter from my Lord Berkeley,” John Smith reigned in his
stead, and his rule was long and beneficent.

Some idea of a day in the Writing School in the later
years of the seventeenth century may be gathered from the
“Orders” drawn up in 1676. Whatever may have been the
case before the Fire, the room occupied was at this time
over the Grammar School, till Sir John Moore’s fine building
was erected for Dame Ramsey’s foundation. Therefore it
is laid down that the Writing Master must “ take care that
his discipline be so managed that there be no disgust given
to the Gramar Masters by a tumultuary remoovall up and
down over their heads to their great disturbance.” As was
the case with the other schools, work began at 7 a.m., when
the usher had to read prayers, and the master must enter
before the prayers were over. Morning school ended at
1 1, with more prayers, and in the afternoon they worked
from 1 to 5 p.m. except Thursdays, when they stopped at
3, and Saturdays and Holy-Days, when there was no after-
noon school at all. At each school there is to be a roll-call
and an injunction is added that “if any shall be found
missing, correction shall be given to them by shame or
smart.” It would seem that occasionally the masters
omitted the consideration of the first alternative. “The
bigger sort” are “to have exercises to prepare at night,”
not so much because their eight hours’ day has not been
enough as in order that they may not “ be idle and gad up
and down the streetes.” Writing is still to receive every
encouragement, for “ whereas the children have hitherto had
but one penn in a weeke, it is agreed that they shall for
the future have two pens.” Special directions are given
about reading ; a “ convenient bible ” is provided as a corpus
vile, and the master must see “ that the Scollars by turns
every morning in an audible manner doe read a chapter,
silence bqing made in the whole schoole and strict attention
injoyned, that soe the children may be better fitted for the
upper schoole.” Various rules are added to regulate the

150 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

relations between master and usher, and both alike have
their devotions interfered with by a command that they
must “come every Lord’s day to Christ Church that soe
their schollars may be kept in good order during prayer
and sermon time.” As to the examination of their pupils,
the Court will look over their copybooks themselves in
Bartholomew week each year, and we have already seen
that they felt equal to cross-questioning the masters them-
selves as to the state of their arithmetic.

For the next twenty years there is little to notice in the
development of the Writing School. The reading was
evidently at one time under suspicion ; for in March 1689
the Committee resolved “that 40 or 50 boyes in the Writing
Schoole shall be examined at every Visitation as to their
reading ” ; and if the dread of appearing before the Court
did not prove a sufficient inducement to them to “ improve
their reading,” then they “shall be sent into the Country,
which will shame them and be a warning to the rest.”
Again, in the year following, there was an attempt to improve
the curriculum on its commercial side. Someone proposed
that a score of the pupils should specially learn “ Merchants’
Accounts,” in the hope that this “ may be of good advantage
to them both for the credit of the Hospitall and the boyes
better preferment when they are placed forth.” So they
sent for Mr Smith, the Writing Master, who said that he
had no time to give such instruction, and it is not clear
that for the moment anything was done. But at some
period or other this sort of teaching was adopted and it
lasted on into the nineteenth century. The Charity Commis-
sioners of 1837 reported that about 50, out of 140, were in
“the Merchants’ Class” — an institution which many “Blues”
can well remember.

The Writing School attained a fresh importance, as the
seventeenth century came to its close, owing to the generous
attentions of Alderman Sir John Moore. Since the Fire
the accommodation had been obviously inadequate, and
Sir John offered to remedy the defect by building an en-
tirely new school at his own charges. Sir Christopher

THE WRITING SCHOOL

WRITING, READING, DRAWING 151

Wren was called in to design the building, and on February
20th, 1672, he “presented the draught of the new intended
Writeing Schoole,” after which the Committee “went to view
the ground and scite proposed.” But, more suo, the great
architect did little of the work himself. In the following
June “ Mr Treasurer represented to the Committee the great
pains and industry that Mr Hawksmore Sr Christopher
Wrens gentleman hath taken in makeing the draughts of
the new intended Writing Schoole and severall other matters
relating to that affaire, as alsoe what great trouble he is
likely to be at in the time of building of it.” Hawksmore,
it will be remembered, was the architect of St. Mary
Woolnoth, and (till the Provost found him too “ luxuriant ”
and “exorbitant”*) was to have designed the additions to
King’s College, Cambridge. In the present instance, he did
not err on the side of luxuriance, and he seems to have been
content when the Governors gave him “ ten Guinneys as an
Expression of their thanks to him for his great care and
Service therein.”

The work was finished within three years, and April 1 ith,
1695, was appointed for “the solemne opening of the new
stately Writing School, built and compleatly finished with all
the conveniences and appendices as it now stands, together
with the Writing-Master’s House adjoining, [apparently the
present Warden’s office] ... at the sole cost and incredible
charge of Sir John Moore Knt.” The ceremony is worth
recording in the words of the Minutes. “After the Lord
Maior was pleased to place himself in the Deske prepared
for the Writing Master and Sr John Moore was prevailed
with to place himselfe there on his right hand (the children
being all placed before in the lower raunges of seats and
in the Gallary), we say, after these preparations made, the
Governors with a great number of other Gentlemen walk’d
out of the greate Hall two and two toward the front of the
Schoole ; where when they had placed themselves in the
foremost raunge of seats and passage, the Treasurer, as he
was directed, made his humble address to the Lord Maior
* Austen Leigh, King’s College , pp 169-70.

152 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

in these or very neere like termes.” Mr. Mountfort, the
Grammar Master, had failed, as already recorded, to produce
a boy fit to make the necessary speech, and Mr. Smith, the
Writing Master, was told to try his hand, but in the end
it fell to the Treasurer, whose words may be easily imagined.
He closed with a prayer for the Divine blessing upon the
generous donor and with the bidding “ Let all that hear
me say Amen.” “ Upon which close,” says the Minute
Book, “ the children (being instructed soe to doe) with many
others joyned as with one mouth in the repetition of Amen
joyfully.” No great occasion in Christ’s Hospital has ever
been complete without an anthem. This time it consisted
of a treble solo, a quartet for the children of the Music
School, and a tutti by the chorus of all the children. The
shops, which were to support this building in more senses
than one, must be mentioned elsewhere ; but with the
exception of them and of the glass partitions which have
split up the big room in modern times the Writing School
remains, at the time I write, much as Sir John Moore left it.
The desks, with their holes for the inkpots with which he
furnished them, are worthy to outlast the present building
and to retire into the country.

One more incident in connexion with Sir John Moore, and
we must leave the good knight. It is worth recording
because it involves the name of a greater than he. It was
felt that the “ incredible charges ” which he had taken upon
him in building the Writing School called for some per-
manent memorial, and between the opening of the building
and the following December, “ Mr Gibbons, the Carver,"
was entrusted with the task of producing a statue of the
benefactor. Like many artists, Gibbons was above such
mundane considerations as punctuality, and Mr. Parrey, the
Clerk, was asked to call upon him (December 20th, 1695) “to
know the reason of his delay,” and “to get Mr Gibbons to
appeare if he can.” “ Mr Gibbons the Carver ” appeared
early in January and “declared that he cannot finish the
statue untill Sr John hath sat once,” but “in a month after
that Mr Gibbons promiseth to finish the same.” What his

WRITING, READING, DRAWING 153

promise was worth may be inferred from an entry of
October 20th, 1698. “ Mr Gibbons, a (sic) Carver, makes

a demand for £60, residue of £90 for making Sir John
Moore’s statue,” but, alas ! “ the same being in no way liked
off has been the occasion of delaying ye payement.” A few
days later the great man, now called “ Mr Grinling Gibbons,
Carver,” was told bluntly “ that the Statue is not approved
off by anybody, the face no way resembling Sir John
Moore,” and that the Committee “doe expect he shall amend
it before he is paid his money.” So three members were
told off to make sure of this amendment, and as the result
of “ their very good satisfaction ” the money was paid. The
marble statue, a class of work with which Gibbons’ name has
not been generally associated, was placed inside the School
at the south end ; but some ten years later it was decided
to put it “on the outside of ye school in a Netch to be made
for that purpose in the middle window on the East side
in the most substantiall and effectuall manner as may be.”
Few would suspect, as they look at it, that it connects
the memory of a generous citizen with the work of a match-
less artist. But those who wish to see it must make a
journey to West Horsham.

THE READING SCHOOL

The separate existence of a Reading School is not to be
followed in the records without some doubt as to its exact
history. We have seen that on the earliest staff there were
“ Scholemaisters for the Petites” who would naturally give
instruction in reading. That is one end of the history of
the Reading School. The other end is that of the “ Blues ”
of modern days, who no doubt are still nominally taught
to read in the Writing School. I can only say that the
first reading lesson which ever made any impression on me
1 received in my nineteenth year from the Head Master with
a view to the “ devotional exercises,” as reporters call them,
at the Public Suppers. But evidently this was not the case
in the early years of the Hospital. “ Whereas,” says a. Court

i54 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

minute of 1632, “it hath been used of Antient custome that
the Children have been remooved out of the pettie schoole
into the writing schoole to the intent they might bee the
sooner fitted to bee put forth apprentizes, It hath been found
that in the tyme of their learning to write they have quite
lost their Readinge for want of exercize, It is therefore
thought fitt and is ordered by this Court that from hence-
forth the said children shalbe remooued out of the Pettie
Schoole into the Grammar Schoole for theire better per-
fection in Reading, And that the said children at the hower
of Foure in the afternoone shall goo from thence to the
Writing Schoole to practise theire writing there after theire
Exercises done in the Grammar Schoole aforesaid.” It is
obvious from this that the teaching of reading in the early
seventeenth century was very much in the haphazard con-
dition which “Blues” of my own standing found in the latter
part of the nineteenth. But at some date shortly after this
year 1632 a department was established (probably on the
foundation of the “Pettie School”) for this particular subject,
which continued to hold its own thirty years later at the
time of the Restoration ; indeed, one of its masters was then
dismissed as a person ill affected towards the King. “Mr
Francis Soley,” the terrible rumour ran in September 1662,
“ had not subscribed according to the last Act of Parliament,
nor had not a Lycence to teach.” But, worse than this,
“he had another imployment and had left the care of the
children to a strainger without the order of the Court,”
who were “highly displeased.” They must, however, have
been highly inconvenienced too ; for the Reading School
was already undermanned. In March 1662 there were “85
house children in the said schoole and but one Maister to
looke unto them (who receiues £18 p. ann, the Usher or
Assistant being lately gone, who receiued £ 12 ), which we are
fully satisfied,” the Committee say, “ is to great to be taught
by one man.” So they recommend the appointment of two
men at £20 a year each and warn them that they are “to
bring no family into the hospital.” Four years later the
Reading School was once more desolate of its proper staff ;

WRITING, READING, DRAWING 155

“ Mr Batty Reading Schoole Maister had since the last Court
for severall reasons withdrawne from his imployment in this
house and the place was now voyd, but att present supplied
by one that was a child of this house (a Minister).” Evi-
dently there was need of someone to be its Maecenas or
force its necessities on public attention. This someone
appeared in the person of Mr. Thomas Barnes, who among
other benefactions, of which more elsewhere, left £25 a year
for a master to teach Latin and English, and the Court
considered this in the light of an endowment for this un-
fortunate Reading School. John Sampson, “heretofore a
child of this Hospitall,” was appointed in 1669, but his work
came to an end in 1684, because “ His Maties HonorbIe Comis-
sioners” (a body with a painfully modern counterpart) did
not “ return ” him as Reading Master. So poor Sampson,
who had already been ordered that “with all convenient
speed hee discharge all his Towne children,” who made up a
large part of his income, found his occupation altogether
gone, without any chance of compensation. And again the
Reading School went into retirement, till the Committee
in 1700 awoke to the fact that there was this unused Barnes
benefaction, and one William East was appointed and
“ allowed to have the possession of the room adjoining
Southward of the Music School for him to lodge in ” ( ob -
scurum per obscurius, for we do not know where the Music
School was). East subsequently went to Hertford, where he
was expected to manage and instruct 130 children at a time,
and “a chaire and Quarto Bible” and a boy “taken out of the
House and bound as an apprentice for seven yeares ” were
all the assistance provided for him.

Half a century later the reading both at Hertford and in
London was still very bad. At Hertford “the children were
frequently taught to write and cast Accompts before they
were able to spell and Read so well as might be expected
from their age and standing.” In London in the same year,
1 75 5> James Townley, then Upper Grammar Master, presented
a memorial to the Committee, “ setting forth that having
observed the Boys in general were very deficient in their

156 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

reading English . . . (there being no provision for instruct-
ing the Boys in Town in this Primary and necessary Qualifi-
cation) therefore proposed to take two Wards at a time into
his School on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays from
eleven to twelve to instruct them in reading English.” He
also suggested alterations in “ the practice of reading in the
Wards on a Sunday (which at present is very ill conducted).”
The latter changes seem to have been left to the initiative
of “the Revd Mr James Penn, Under Grammar Master,”
whose scheme was put forward in 1761 and throws some
light on one or two matters of interest. “ 1 he learning of
Latin,” he says, “ is immediately necessary for Youth de-
signed for the University, mediately for other Professions ;
a small number of Boys is sufficient for these Purposes, the
Demand for both being very inconsiderable.” No boy
therefore should go into the Grammar School with a view
to learning Latin after ten years of age, “ because he will not
be able to make the Progress necessary to qualify him for
the University.” Boys of eleven, found to be deficient in
Latin, should drop it and learn “ to Read and Write English
and to Spell.” There should be 100 of these to 30 Latinists.
Here is his not very exciting curriculum. His first form —
those who can both read and write — were to occupy their
mornings first by reading “ Three or 4 chapters in the
Bible” and then with “an English exercise Extempore to
write ” ; the first part of the afternoon should be given to
spelling, and the second to “ An English Exercise in Writing,
the words all false.” His second class would simply vary
its reading lessons by learning to write, while both classes
were twice a week to learn “ a Collect or part of the Bible
by heart.”

But there was still the difficulty of keeping up the reading
after they left the Lower Grammar School, and this Penn
proposed to meet by a system of reading in the wards.
“ Two chapters,” he says, “ are or ought to be read in every
Ward one in the morning the other in the evening by a
boy called the Marker. Instead of which suppose the Boys
in their several wards were to take it in turn to read these

WRITING, READING, DRAWING 157

Chapters. By this method every Boy would read at least
Twelve Chapters in the Bible yearly.” Also, and worse
than all, “of a Sunday at Noon when in their Wards each
boy to read Ten or Twelve verses in the Bible. This
finished, to spell.” What happened to this dismal scheme
it is impossible to say, but its mention of the “ boy called
the Marker” is interesting. In Trollope’s time the Markers
were “selected from the best proficients in reading, with
a due regard to general merit,” and were also Monitors.
They wore a Marker’s medal attached to a blue ribbon on
Sundays and public occasions, and this custom continued
till 1880, when the present writer, the last of the Markers
to wear his medal in school, was called upon to deliver it
up, and the ribbon to which it was attached is preserved in
the Museum.

But in between Mr. Penn’s scheme and the Trollope era
there occur entries in the minutes which show that the
Governors were doing their best to make the reading in-
struction efficient and general. In 1800 and thereabouts the
examiner in this subject was a certain Mr. Prince and his
task was evidently no light one. The Committee of that
date expressed their grateful sense that “ his examination
of so large a number of Boys as 459 engaged an uncommon
devotion of his own time,” and the work was clearly done
on some definite system, for the reading-books in use were
carefully graduated to show “ the qualification of each boy
then and now.” In the spring of 1801 the number under
examination had dropped to 351, being regulated by the
number of boys in the school over thirteen years of age,
and the precise and painsfull examiner notes for the in-
formation of the Governors that “their errors were 1022.”
We may take leave of him with a mention of his mild
suggestion made in the following year that “ he thought
much good would result if English Grammar were in general
use.”

The late Canon Buckle, whose recollections I have quoted
elsewhere, told me that one thing at any rate the school did
for the boys of his day. “ It made us very familiar with the

158 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

text of the Prayer Book and the Bible — which last was a
regular reading-book for the younger classes”; while my
old friend, Deputy Cox, whose memory went back still
further, wrote that “ after leaving the Hall on Sundays before
going to Church in the afternoon, we assembled in the
wards, and there was a little reading, a Marker presiding.”
All of which seems to show that, as the century went on,
the “ Blues ” after their early years taught themselves to
read and did it with their Bible.

THE DRAWING SCHOOL

It is conceivable that some scholars of our ancient house
will want to skip this subject, and indeed it has its un-
pleasant memories for many. In modern times instruction
in drawing has been compulsory at certain stages in the
school course, and the present writer is one of a herd whom
Providence never intended for the describing of straight
lines, much less of curves. And there was a time within
comparatively recent memory, when others, who had a
moderate competency in these mysteries, chose rather to
disguise it and suffer affliction among the incompetents
than to fly to evils that they knew not of, except by dire
report, in the room beyond. But, in the assurance that
manners have changed with the times even in the Drawing
School, we may pass with equanimity to glance at its
beginnings.

The motive which led to its establishment was not art for
art’s sake. The “ King’s foundation ” had brought into the
school a certain zeal for technical instruction. The “ Mathe-
mats” prepared “draughts” of all kinds from the beginning
under the eye of their master, and it has already been
remarked that all other interests were for a time sub-
ordinated to those of the King’s Boys. It was therefore
proposed in the summer of 1692 that the teaching of
drawing should begin in the Writing School, to save the
time of the Mathematical master; and in November Mr.
Smith, the Writing Master, presented to the Schools

WRITING, READING, DRAWING 159

Committee “ a specimen of divers of the Boyes drawing,
which they have learnt in about three months’ time.” So
far the experiment was justified ; and meanwhile the
Treasurer had been asking for opinions as to the need of
such a school from experts such as “ Sr Christo: Wren”
and Samuel Pepys. In his reply Wren said he had heard
it observed “that our English Artists are dull enough at
Inventions, but when once a forreigne pattern is sett, they
imitate soe well that commonly they exceed the originall.”
“ I confess,” he went on, “ the observation is generally true,
but this shows that our Natives want not a genius, but
education in that which is the foundation of all Mechanick
Arts, a practice in designing or drawing, to wch every body
in Italy, ffrance, and the Low Countryes pretends to more
or less.” Pepys, whose letter is dated November 17th, 1692,
confesses that he is not the man he was and can only send
“y° opinion of one whom age and Idlenesse have nowe
spoiled for a Councellor in anything.” But he takes just
Wren’s commercial view of the need of the Drawing School,
urging that “ fforeigne artizans and especially the ffrench ”
are far ahead of their British colleagues in this matter.

Backed by this advice, the Governors started the school in
a small way. There would not be room, Mr. Smith said,
for more than a dozen boys to learne drawing in the Writing
School, and one Faithorne was elected to teach that number
on a stipend of £ 20 , in February, 1693. But, like other of
the Hospital’s educational ventures, the Drawing School was
almost wrecked by the inefficiency of the first teachers.
Within two years the Treasurer began to have his fears
about Faithorne, and the Committee “sent for him with the
boyes that he teaches to draw.” They decided that “ he
does not acquit himself worthily,” and that there must be
some improvement, “ otherwayes they will dismiss him.”
A year passed and he was before them again, with “ nothing
materiall to say in his owne vindication.” At last, in July
1696, they made up their minds that his teaching “hath
not been of noe advantage in any respect whatever,” and
Faithorne went his way. For a time the Governors had

160 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

had enough of Drawing Masters, and the project was
dropped for seven years. It came up again in 1703, and
was perpetually considered and deferred till May 1705,
when it was decided that forty boys should learn drawing,
possibly because Faithorne had been idle with his twelve
pupils, but, more probably, because forty was the number of
the “ Mathemats.” This time they would be more careful
in their choice. There were two candidates, “ of both whose
qualifications the Committee resolved to make an experi-
ment, and to that purpose severall of the Committee went
with the Candidates upon the Platforme over the Mathe-
matical! Schoole, and there set each of them to draw
imediately with their Pencill a draught or view of Christ’s
Church Steeple, and the prospect of the Steeples as farr as
Guildhall.” It was at once a severe test in itself and a
delicate compliment to Sir Christopher Wren, who prided
himself on nothing so much as the nicely calculated effect
of his circle of City towers. As a result, the Committee
“ were clearly of opinion that Mr Lens draws the quickest
and the best.” If names go for anything, they might hope
to have made the best choice, and so it turned out. Lens
was to teach three afternoons a week during the usual hours
at ^30 a year. In 1706 he received a “rise” to .£50, and in
1708 (because he “ acquitts himselfe like an honest and
ingenuous master”) another to £70. He held his classes
in the Great Hall, and he taught only the “ Mathemats.”
Their progress was so satisfactory that it was enacted for
their encouragement “ that the drawing boyes when they are
discharged the House shall take along with them the books
of their own works.” The only trouble came from the
Mathematical Master (Newton), who “hath frequently on
some pretence or other kept the boyes of his school from
their attendance on Mr Lens.” Apart from such trifles the
early Drawing School was an undoubted success. Trollope
says that in his time the drawing master was “ attached ”
to the Mathematical School, but that he also had to teach
certain boys sent to him from the Grammar and Writing
Schools; and there was a sensible understanding that, if

WRITING, READING, DRAWING 161

any of them “shall not have a capacity or genius for
drawing,” they are to be “ more suitably employed.” By the
middle of the nineteenth century it had come to pass that
certain forms were sent en masse to the Drawing School, with
the result that tempers were lost and spirits were cowed and
“detentions” were frequent and scourgings fierce. But in
its instruction of the “ Mathemats ” the Drawing School has
nearly always been successful, and has sometimes achieved
quite astonishing results. The beautiful art school already
built at West Horsham offers the hope of still better things
in future, not only for the “ Mathemats,” but for those in
other parts of the school who have talents in this direction.
It is to be sincerely hoped, however, that the “ incapables ”
will be permitted to be “ more suitably employed.”

These six — the Grammar, the Mathematical, the Writing,
the Reading, the Music, and the Drawing Schools — represent
all that was attempted in the first century and a half of the
history of the Foundation, and the system cannot be said to
err on the side of the niggardly or the narrow. Signs are
not wanting that more modern subjects pressed for con-
sideration ; for example, in September 1709 there was a
“ proposall sent in writing to the Governors of this Hospitall
by Mr Zachary Loquet for introducing a French school
here, without putting the house to any charge.” Obviously
the proposer was prepared to act towards the French School
the part played by Lady Ramsey to the Writing School,
by Dow to the Song School, and by Aldworth and Colwall
to King Charles’ Foundation. For the moment the matter
was postponed.

Modern times have brought modern developments. The
Commissioners of 1837 “entirely agree in the opinion that
boys educated here ought to be taught the principal modern
languages. In the present state of the intercourse between
this country and the continent, no system of education has
any pretence to be termed satisfactory, much less complete,
that does not embrace the study of the French and German
languages.” In regard to French, the advice was taken

162 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

without delay, and for a quarter of a century and more the
Modern Side has been taught German as well. Indeed, in
my own time in the Grecians’ Class the Governing Body
gave us the inestimable advantage of receiving a good start
in that language from Dr. Theod. Wehe, a teacher whose
early death has meant a grievous loss to education in the
country of his adoption.

THIS GIRLS’ SCHOOL

* ✓

THE PLAYGROUND

THE HERTFORD SCHOOL

FROM PHOTOGRAPHS BY MR. !*• G. SMART, A GOVERNOR

CHAPTER IX.

THE JUNIORS AND THE GIRLS

“At Hertford I was very happy on the whole, for I had plenty to eat and drink,
and we had pudding and vegetables almost every day.” — Coleridge.

CHRIST’S HOSPITAL, HERTFORD

THIS story of our Foundation ought to contain some
brief reference to work that has been carried on
from its earliest years at a considerable distance from
Newgate Street. It has already been shown that the first
recipients of the City’s bounty were divided into children
under education and children out at nurse. In theory, these
last could be entertained anywhere, and so much a week
was paid for their maintenance till they were of an age to
join the school. But well within a century of the foundation
of the Hospital it had become the practice to send them
to three neighbouring towns in Hertfordshire — Hoddesdon,
Ware, and Hertford. Here the Hospital acquired a number
of houses which it permitted certain selected nurses to
occupy, they supplying the furniture and receiving up to 1709
two shillings, and afterwards half a crown a week for the
board of each child sent to them. It is easy to believe that
these worthy dames complained as often as they reasonably
could that “ all sorts of provisions were extraordinary deare,”
with a view to an additional allowance. But the fact that
from early times the Hospital had not only its many pen-
sioners, but hundreds of boys and girls at nurse in these
three towns as well as in the City, is a good instance of the
wide extent of its beneficence. Of the three, the settlement
at Hoddesdon or Broxbourne was the least important and

163

1 64 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

was for girls ; the “ Place House ” at Ware provided accom-
modation for about 180, all boys, and the premises at
Hertford, which have continued on much the same site
since the middle of the seventeenth century, contained at
first about 280, of both sexes, the great majority being
boys.

In each place the Hospital, while it farmed out the cater-
ing of the children, made itself personally responsible for
their education by appointing and paying schoolmaster or
mistress, as the case might be. The great difficulty was to
provide proper supervision of these dominies at such a
distance from headquarters. There are occasional signs
of a Committee of Governors resident in the locality, who
could drop in casually and report their observations to
London. But in the end everything depended upon the
Masters, and after the removal to Hertford on March 12th,
1697, of the “Mistris and Girles” from “ Hodsdon ” and
on March 19th of “the Master and children” from Ware
(though the latter was not a final arrangement), the Hertford
Master had his hands full. There were, however, many more
complaints about Ware than about Hertford. In 1716 it
was reported that “ the [Ware] children were restrained from
playing at seasonable times in the ffield given (by Sr Jonathan
Raymond, a worthy benefactor) for that purpose, . . . and
all this purely for the accomodation of Mr Hathaway [the
Master] who kept a Cow and an ass in the said feild, and
likewise that Mr Hathaway entertained and taught among
the Hospitall children a great number of foreign children
contrary to the knowledge of this House.” Another master
in 1728 was forbidden to punish the children “in an un-
comon manner or imploy any of them in Servile work
or send them to glean corn or look after his Geese or
Fowles.” At one inspection the Governors found that there
are compensations for every disorder. For “whereas May
Johnson, a nurse, and her daughter” were “disguised in
Liquor” and had to be reprimanded, there is next a “Note.
The children at Ware were catechized and made their
answers perfectly and well.” A nurse in 1755, who bore

THE JUNIORS AND THE GIRLS 165

the name of Keymer, afterwards so well known at Hertford
in another connexion, was complained of by her “ children,”
that “ she almost starved them and that what she did give
them was very little and bad, and that they for weeks to-
gether had no small beer given them, and that what they
had was often sour.” It is clear also that the “ Place House”
was insanitary, with “ stinking and unwholesome water stand-
ing in a well and overflowing,” and that it was fairly ruinous ;
for in 1748 an order was given that the fronts of the houses
should “be Boarded up as far as is necessary to keep out
the Cold.” Nor was the teaching, which consisted largely
of reading-lessons, very much better. The Ware master
of 1760 complained that he could not secure proper progress,
as there was a rule that he must “ not put any of the Children
under his care into Writing till they were Ten years of Age,
which he apprehended was a great hindrance to such Boys
who had good Capacities.” The Governors at once told him
to begin writing lessons with the boys “ when he should
judge most for their advantage.” But by that time the days
of the Ware School were numbered.

The Hertford premises had been practically rebuilt in 1695
and the old school-house turned into an infirmary. In 1760
it was reported that there were “ in the buildings at Hertford
20 houses which have eight beds in each, and will com-
modiously [ i.e . two in a bed !] entertain, at 16 in each House,
320 children.” At Hertford and London together there were
then 986 places, but only 850 children. They therefore
decided to add two Houses to Hertford, remove the Ware
children thither, and dispose of the Ware premises altogether.
It was recommended that this removal should take place
“ as soon as possible whilst the weather is warm and the
Days are long.”

Hoddesdon and Ware may thus be regarded as un-
satisfactory episodes. Hertford, on the other hand, is a
permanent if sometimes troublesome feature in the School’s
history. The responsibility, as already stated, fell mainly on
the Master. It was he who received an “order to imploy a
barber when it’s needfull at the rate of Twelve pence p. score

1 66 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

to cut their hair.” It was he who had to keep the nurses
within the rules, and he not seldom failed ; witness a com-
plaint made in 1715 “that upwards of One hundred persons,
Lodgers and nurse children, have entertainment in our
Buildings at Hertford, whereby our Children suffer much
inconvenience.” It was he who had to keep order within the
Hospital and “ so take care that the Gates be shut up every
Night at Nine of the Clock ” ; but his ways of doing so were
often curious. An “anonimous Letter” was read* to the
Committee in London, reporting “the Scandal that the
School at Hertford lies under by the Master’s bad conduct
by puting the Girls in the Boys Nurses houses,” and still
more “by letting the School to an Italian Hussy to act
a Droll in every night, which Gentlemen that would be
benefactors to the said Charity cry out Shame, to see the
Play Bills sticked up on every Post in the Town.” It was
not much wonder that a man who had devoted “ all the time
he could spare from the neglect ” of such duties to the
instruction of over 200 children in “Reading, Writing,
Arithmetick and Latin ” should think himself poorly paid
at £6$ a year, even with the addition of “twenty shillings
p. ann. for his care of and winding up the Clock.”

But it must not be supposed that he was left entirely to
his own resources save for occasional calls from a local
Governor. From the earlier days of the Hertford settlement
right up to recent times it has been the custom of the
Governors to pay a formal visit of inspection once a year
to the children in the country. The mistake made was that
they mostly gave notice of their coming and that for many
years they might confidently be expected during the early
days of March. The money to pay the nurses was sent
regularly by stage coach. “Kyffin Phillips, who keeps [1769]
one of the Hertford Stage-Coaches,” was employed to carry
this money, " being paid two shillings for carriage of each
Parcel of Money at his own Risque.” But the visiting
Governors disdained the ordinary “ Stage.” They have
left a record of the exact details of their various journeys

December, 1757.

THE JUNIORS AND THE GIRLS 167

in the “View Books.” The party consisted generally of
the Treasurer, two or more Governors, a clerk, a beadle,
and the Treasurer’s servant. They would set off early in
the morning, generally about six o’clock, from “ the Moor-
gate Coffee House ” in “ a coach and four horses,” and would
reach Hertford before noon. On arrival they went into
the schools and examined the children in reading and
writing, an ordeal out of which the children often came
very badly. In this way they picked out a number of
scholars, about fifty boys and a score of girls, as being fit
to be moved up to the London school, whither they departed
“by waggon” a few days later. Then the Governors visited
the various houses, paying special attention to the bedding
and the general cleanliness, and showing their displeasure
if they found, as they sometimes did, that three boys were
put to sleep in one bed. Their next inquiry was about
the food. One report says they “ enquired strictly, taking
every Nurses children by themselves, whether they had their
Bellies full of Victuals, and they all declared with much
chearfulness they had as much as they could eat.” Some-
times a young rascal would aver that he was starved, and
after much cross-examination explain his lie by “ his desire
of being removed to London,” the Mecca of every Hertford
“ Blue.” Then, unless it was necessary (as it often was)
to go up to the old parish church, several years ago con-
sumed by fire, in order to consult with the churchwardens
about an alteration in the west-gallery, where the “ Blues ”
sat on Sundays, the visitors would have their dinner, mount
their coach, and drive off “through the Park” to Ware,
putting up for the night “at the Bull Inn.” Next morning
they went through a similar inspection of the school there,
and “ so home to bed ” in London.

This book is not a history of Christ’s Hospital, Hertford,
but it would not be fair to omit this short rec'ord of the
preparatory school which started life as a creche. Up to
1891, with very few exceptions, every boy admitted to the
foundation was obliged to make a short stay at Hertford.
If he was precociously quick or very advanced in his studies,

1 68 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

his sojourn there might be a matter of weeks. If he was
abnormally dull, it was prolonged till he was sent up, as we
used to say, “ for age,” on the principle that, as he was never
likely to learn much, he would only get into mischief and
“ corrupt other.” But the new Scheme has deprived the
“ competition wallahs ” of any visit to Hertford. They
come straight to the London School, and the number of
boys in the country has been correspondingly reduced.
Moreover, the future will sever the boys’ school from Hert-
ford altogether, for it has been recently decided that the
preparatory school shall accompany the main body to West
Horsham, where a house is being built for it. The Hertford
site will then be entirely occupied by the girls of the founda-
tion.

THE GIRLS’ SCHOOL

This therefore will be a convenient place in which to give
some account of the Girls’ School, which is coeval with the
Boys’ School, though it has never been of the same im-
portance nor attained the same publicity ; indeed a recent
correspondent of The Times (March 14th, 1901) denied its
very existence “except on paper.” But by no sort of justice
can the Annals of Christ’s Hospital exclude some notice
of it, though it has been the lordly fashion of “ Blues ”
male to think foul scorn of “ Blues ” female ; and I can
remember, so arrant is the snobbery of youth, that in our
estimation a fellow “ lost caste ” if he happened to have a
sister on the foundation. In the same vein Trollope lets
them down gently by saying that they were made fit for
“ the humbler walks of life wherein they may be expected to
move.”

But the worthy Governors entertained no such prejudice
in old times. From the first they laid themselves out to
assist helpless children of both sexes, as various instances
have already shown. In their records of their work, the
phrase they most commonly use is “ the children of this
House,” and from 1553 to 1776 the House in London
included both sexes impartially. I have been unable to
discover in what part of the buildings the girls were lodged

THE JUNIORS AND THE GIRLS 169

previously to the Fire, but it is certain that after the Tiie
accommodation was found for them in the splendid brick
building erected by Sir Robert Clayton over the “Giffs.”
They attended Christ Church and acted mutes at “ Burials,”
like the boys, and for a century and a half they had their
meals in Hall at the same time as the rest of the school,
a perilous arrangement which, nevertheless, does not appear
to have led to any quarrelling. It came to an end in 1703,
because there was not sufficient room, as the following order
shows : “ Whereas now the number of the Children are
enlarged the Tables in the Hall are not sufficient for them
all to sit down at Meales without being very much crowded,
It is ordered that the Girles shall dyet in their Ward, there
being a convenient Table there for that purpose, and that
the King’s Ward boyes shall be removed up to the Girles
Table.” It would even appear that for certain purposes
they went to school in the same room as the boys. For
there is an order of 1710 that “the Girles shall noe longer
goe to the Writing School to learn to write, but that some
conveniency shall be made in their own school for their
Writing, and that the Writing Master shall send his serv1
\i.e. his apprentice] to instruct them at such hours as shall be
thought most convenient.”

As a rule the Girls’ School gave very little trouble, and
the rewards frequently voted to the Mistresses imply the
constant satisfaction of the Governors. There was, however,
an amusing exception in the case of Mistress Lorrain, who
was in office when the change just mentioned took place.
At the “ Visitacon ” of April 1715, the Treasurer had to
remark openly on “the unruly and disorderly carriage and
behaviour of the Girls,” and he put it down to the fact that
Mrs. Lorrain “ did not her duty as she ought to doe ; which
being officiously carryed to her within two or three hours
after, Mr Paul Lorrain her husband came to [the Treasurer’s]
House and treated him in a very unbecoming and dis-
respectfull manner, telling him he had acted like a knave
to speak of his wife behind her back to that effect.” So
husband and wife “ had notice to attend the Committee, and

i7o ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

she accordingly attending (her husband not present)” re-
ceived her conge on the spot. It is not surprising that a few
years later (1767), when the Committee set forth the
qualifications necessary for a schoolmistress, they should
not only exclude those who were under thirty-five or over
fifty, but also anyone who “is a marryed woman.” It was
arranged at the same time that the candidates should “ be
examined by the Upper Gramar Master as to their ability
of Teaching to Read, Spel, &c. and by the Matron as to
their Ability in Teaching Needle and other works usually
Taught in the said School,” the Treasurer to act as duenna
at both examinations.

The duenna-like proposal of a former Treasurer
(Nathaniel Hawes), in 1684, “that some of the girles
might be taught to knitt, which motion was laid aside at
present,” suggests the question of the sort of needlework
done by the girls. Their dormitory in London was, as else-
where recorded,* close to the cutting-room and the Ward-
robe, and it is fairly certain that from early times they were
employed (possibly at one time in common with the boys)
in making the clothing for the Foundation. “ The Children’s
coates, petticoates, and other things,” says a minute of 1637,
“ weare alwayes made by the children of this house in the
Taylor’s shopp,” and an arrangement is at the same time
concluded with the Tailor. He is to receive “x1- p. ann.”
“for the cutting out of all the said coates and trayning
up the said children to make and ffinish them.” Further
“this house shall bee at the charge of Thredd, Needles, and
Thymbles, for the doing of the said worke, but the sheeres
and Pressing Irons hee is to find at his owne charges.”
The statement that such had “ alwayes ” been the case must
be compared with the facts which can be gathered from still
earlier Court Books. These show that the children were
taught trades. In 1562 four children were sent to Bridewell
to learn a trade, having their meals provided at Christ’s
Hospital. A little later a place is to be provided in the
Hospital, where a dozen children are to be taught to make

* See p. 49.

A GROUP OF GIRLS IN VERRIO'S PICTURE

THE JUNIORS AND THE GIRLS 171

thread and spin flax. A tapestry maker is granted a room,
and there is an agreement with him to teach two children.
So also with a maker of Turkey carpets. In 1574 one
“ Nicholas Van Buescum, a pynne maker,” asked the
Corporation to allow him “a convenyent place within
thospitall of St. Thomas or Brydewell to make pynnes,
and there to teache and instructe certeyn of the poore
children of Chriesties Hospitall in the sayd arte of makynge
of pynnes.” Finally, I think the part that the girls took in
making the clothes required for the Hospital is fairly proved
by various entries subsequent to their removal to Hertford.
One states (October 1780) that it is thought well to increase
the number of girls in the school, it being “ necessary to
have a sufficient number to do the work with ease, that they
may sometimes have an opportunity of being exercised
in finer work.” Sewing coats, that is to say, is all very well,
but why may we not crochet, for a change ? Another (dated
March nth, 1801) mentions that there were then only 60
girls in the school instead of 100, and that 22 would be
leaving during the year. “Also,” it goes on, “from the
smallness of the present number, already daily diminishing,
a considerable portion of the House work was necessarily
placed out.” Accordingly, in November 1802, it was
resolved that the girls should stay in the school till they
were 15, instead of 14, “being for the last year made
acquainted with household affairs.” We can thus believe
Trollope’s statement that in his time “part of their occupa-
tion consists in making the linen both of the boys and them-
selves.”

The removal of all the girls to Hertford was first proposed
in 1776. It was then urged that there was “great want of
Room” in the Hospital in London, and that the remedy
might be found in “building Nurseries for all the Girls upon
the ground late in lease to Mr Whittenbury by which means
the Girls’ Ward in London will be disengaged and may be
employed for the entertainment of seventy Boys.” The
project was approved. In 1778 a “Writing and Arithme-
tick Master” was appointed for them “when they come to

172 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Hertford,” his special qualification being that he “ is a
married man of very Regular Behaviour and fair character,”
and in the following year, when the Visitors drove down
in their coach and four, they were able to examine the girls
in the school which has been their abode ever since. The
Girls’ School has had its ups and downs between that day
and this. But it is worth noting that the Charity Com-
missioners reported in 1837 a remark of the then Treasurer
(Mr. Pigeon) that the Girls’ School “ is considered as the
most perfect branch of the whole establishment.”

The Charity Commissioners of the present day, much as
they have done to cripple the old Foundation, may take
credit for their efforts in behalf of this “most perfect branch.”
Under its talented Head Mistress the Girls’ School has
undergone a remarkable development in recent years. As
soon as Horsham is ready for the boys, the Hertford building
will be wholly given over to the girls. Not the least remark-
able feature about them is their keen and patriotic interest in
everything that affects the welfare of the Foundation and the
prosperity of all who love it.

CHAPTER X.

FOOD AND CLOTHING

S a Religious Foundation Christ’s Hospital reveres the

Divine Authority which tells it that “ the life is more
than the food and the body than the raiment.” Yet in
actual practice most schoolboys may be pardoned for putting
their gloss on the first clause, and the world in general
agrees that the circumstances of Christ’s Hospital will make
it natural to dwell a little on the second. Both of them
deserve more than ordinary consideration, inasmuch as they
have been freely bestowed without payment on every genera-
tion of “ Blues ” (save the one now in existence), and that
portion of the fees' now allowed by the Scheme to be de-
manded of parents, which can be made to represent the
cost of food and clothing, is not large enough either to
recompense the authorities for what they bestow or to en-
courage a boy to imagine that he pays for what he receives.
In the matter of food, therefore, as well as of raiment, the
“Blue” has always stood on different ground to that of
the ordinary public-school boy, whose parents pay for his
“keep” and find themselves expected to resort to “hampers”
in addition.

It is only fair to those who have so freely devoted their time
to the care of the children to say that from the first it was
never from lack of diligence in the Committee if food was
scanty or inferior. The earliest Governors, as we have seen,
received into their Hospital the starvelings of the City streets.

173

174 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

They were mostly men engaged in trade and commerce, and
the supplying of provisions “on the best terms possible” (the
phrase is their own) was a matter that they understood more
clearly than they did their Latin Grammar, and they have
left us a beautifully written and fairly detailed account of
the earliest outlay in this respect. The “Annual Accompt”
shows first what was spent on adapting the “Grey Friars”
to scholastic uses, and the moment the children are admitted
in November 1552 there is a heading called “ Acates” (a word
which is obviously related to the French achat). The modern
Lawsonian must not be scandalised if the first item of all
was “ Beare, iiju vj8 viijd,” and if a mere trifle was spent
on “ Mylke,” and “ Butyer.” At least there was over ten
pounds’ worth of Mutton, and “ Beof ” to the value of seven
guineas, for the first month. To these December added
“ whytinge and ffyshe (xa iiij8 xd),” and there are signs of
further variety in the entry “Acates of all kyndes.xxxj11 vj8 iiijd.”
February and March of 1553 followed out the same metiu,
save for “hearinge and other ffyshe” in the one and “playse”
in the other. The bread bill came in during the autumn
of 1553, when there was “Paid to Mr. Cleyton Baker for
Breade spente in this House from the tyme of the erection
thereof which was in Novembre A0 1552 unto Septembre
A0 1553 . . . ca.” They also paid in January 1554 “for cliiij
gallons of Milk” at the rate of “iijd” a gallon.

After this the accounts begin to lose their earlier details,
and the Governors were evidently developing a system of
paying to nurses and others a weekly sum “per capita”
for the board of the children, especially those in the In-
firmary. It was a plan which did not, and did not deserve
to, last any great time. The only hope of efficiency and
economy lay in the system of contracts which has prevailed
practically throughout. It may be noted, as a sign of the
partnership of interest between the Royal Hospitals, that
in November 1557 it was resolved : “that the bread to serue
this house shalbe made hereafter at Bridewell, and to delyver
iii loves for iid and everye loof to contain xx ounz until meale
be solde in the markette of London for xs the quarter, and

FOOD AND CLOTHING 175

then to scruc iiii loofes for ii^ after the rate of the ounse
aforesaid.”

The same carefulness entered into their arrangement of the
meat contracts. In 1593 “William Hawer bucher is agreed
withall to serve this House with beefe, mutton, and veale
for one whole year to Shrowetide 1593, .and the same to
be holsom and good, the bones to be taken out of the beafe
and he to have xid p. ston. for witness whereof he hath put
his mark” — a big bald H. By 1675 the price of “Buttock
fflanck and chuck beefe ” had risen to “ 2s p. stone,” and in
1769 the butcher of the day undertook to supply beef,
mutton, veal and pork “ at two shillings and three pence per
stone.” The last-mentioned contract specified that “the
roasting Beef” should be “ middle Ribs without the gristle
or tops, two Ribs only being cut off the fore Ribbs, & the
Hospital having the four next Ribs of a large ox, and
the next five of a small Ox.” It was, of course, as it
still is, the duty of the Steward to keep an eye on the
purveyor. According to an order of 1638, he was to see
the meat “ weighed at the Butchers ” and later “ weighed into
the Chaldron ” and later still “ hee shall weigh it when it
shall be boyled.” The same order adds that “ the nurse for
every child that is wanting at every meale. shall returne unto
the Steward the allowance of bread cheese butter & beefe,
and hee to give an accompt of the same,” which reminds
me that my first “Dame” at the Hospital had a rather
mythical cat with a voracious appetite for tit-bits from the
plat du jour. The standing side-dish of the seventeenth and
early eighteenth centuries was a mysterious something called
“ Pudding Pyes,” the contracts for which occur again and
again in the minutes, being left for many years in the hands
of a firm called Sturt. The committee had Mr. Sturt up
in 1684 and “told him all the ingredients for making the
said puddings were very cheape, and therefore expected he
should abate of the prise he had received.” Sturt urged
against any abatement that “he made the comodity very
good and that severall Governors upon view had approved
of the same.” Indeed “he would make it appeare that he

176 ANNALS OF CHRIST'S HOSPITAL

is a looser rather than a gainer,” but he only got his contract
by “allowing 13 to the dozen at I2d.” In 1699, he was told
that the articles supplied were to be “ good cleanly wholsom
pudding pyes,” each “ to weigh (after it is baked) eight
ounces at least Avoirdupois weight.” But in 1712 these
luxuries paid the penalty of price and unpopularity. “Take-
ing into their consideracon the expense of Puding Pyes for
the Children and the Dislike they have thereto,” the Com-
mittee discharged “ Mre Paul als Sturt ” (for she had
apparently married again and “kept on the business”) and
substituted bread and cheese. I grieve to say that the
contract for cheese fell to a Governor at “ three pence p.
pound.”

It will now be well to give some details as to the daily
menu and its gradual transformation. The fare for each
week was settled in 1678, as follows: —

‘ Sunday, noone — boyled beefe and poradge with 50Z of

bread.

att night — Roast mutton. [The Public Supping]

Monday, noone — Water grewell with currants,

night — cheese.

Tuesday, noone — boyled beef.

night — cheese.

Wednesday, noone— Milk porrage bread & butter.

night — pudding pyes without bread.

Thursday, noone — Boyled beef.

night — cheese.

ffryday, noone — milk porrage bread & butter.

night — pudding pyes without bread.

Saturday — milk porrage with bread & butter at noone.

night — cheese.

Every morning 2\ oz. of bread and a supp of drink.

5 oz. of bread att every meal, dynner & supper.’

The first change in this arrangement was proposed in
1684, it being suggested that “boyled Rice” might be a
useful alternative for cheese. The suggestion required con-
siderable discussion with the officers. The Steward had to
be asked “what a meale of Rice will stand this Hospitall

FOOD AND CLOTHING

1 77

in,” and the Doctor and the Apothecary were called upon to
give advice from their point of view. The Steward’s report
is not on record, but that of the Doctor and the Apothecary
stated that “it hath pleased God to bless the children of
this house with a great deale of health,” there being then
only three children in the Sick Ward out of 350. So the
status quo prevailed. Two years later an order was passed
substituting “Beanes in the roome of Water-gruel” on “two
severall dayes.” Another two years, and a sub-committee
of medical men was earnestly occupied with further changes.
“A meale of Rice once a week instead of Water-gruel”
being decided on, the Committee ordered on January 5th,
1689, that “a quantity of Rice of about a Tonn should be
provided at the best hand.” After six weeks’ trial of this,
it was proposed “ that the children should have buttered
wheate for dinners & abate one meale of Rice, it being
cheaper and much wholsomer. Wherupon the Comee are
of opinion that they may have two meales of wheate in
a weeke (except during Lent) & one of Rice and noe Water-
gruel.” But in 1694 there was trouble in the rice market ;
“no Rice to be had upon any Termes whatever”; and this
time its place is taken by “ barley-broth with a few basket
Rasons in it ” and by “ pease pottage every ffryday.” Still
they never allowed that the “ dyett ” of their young charges
had reached perfection. In 1706 they were concerned about
Wednesday’s menu, conceiving that there was a lack of bread
about it — “only two ounces and a half of bread all that
day, which is at breakfast, at Dinner each of them a dish of
ffirmity, and at Supper a pudding pye.” The remedy was
to have “an addition of half a loafe and one ounce of
Butter.”

The fattest of the children’s days was Sunday, when they
had meat twice, and when their digestion seems to have
suffered by comparison with leaner days. The Roast
Mutton at supper could not be abandoned for the credit
of the House, as at that time the British Public was present
in force to see them feed. So in 1708 came the question
“what spoon meat may be most proper for the children’s

173 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

dinner on Sundays instead of the boyled beef,” and the
solution took the less substantial shape of “ milk with bread
boyled in it.” However “from thence sundry inconveniences
have arisen ” and the “ boyled beef” was reinstated. But
it took the Governors till 1721 to realise that “the Dyett
from Thursday Noon to Sunday Noon was only Bread
Butter and Cheese Pease Porridge and Water gruell” and
that “ the same ought in some way to be amended.” So
the Committee proposed to insert somewhere during that
very lean part of the week a meal of “ Leggs and Lynns
of Mutton Boyled,” and when the matter was taken before
the highest tribunal, the Court agreed, but left the choice
of joints to the Treasurer.

It has been the custom to abuse the diet at the Hospital
in far more recent times than those here referred to, but
enough has been said to show that the civic worthies who
administered the affairs of the Hospital were ready to go
to the limit of their finances in making reasonable changes.
That the portions given to each boy were never excessive is
only too likely, but Lamb tells us, what everyone’s ex-
perience will justify at Christ’s Hospital and elsewhere,
that a “more than Judaic rigour” prevented the youngsters
from eating “ gags ” and “ certain kinds of sweet cake.”
Both Lamb and Leigh Hunt, however, can be quoted to
show that the fare at the Public Suppers had ceased in their
day to include meat. Lamb says that “ the well-lighted
hall ” looked “ more like a concert or assembly than a scene
of a plain bread-and-cheese collation,” and Leigh Hunt
records a tradition “ that during the blissful era of the blue
velvet, we had roast mutton for supper.” The locus classicus
on the subject of the week’s diet is of course the opening
lines of “Christ’s Hospital Five and Thirty Years Ago,”
which should be compared with the list already given for
1684, just a century earlier than Lamb’s time. There was
still “milk porritch, blue and tasteless,” and pease-soup
“ coarse and choking.” The “ Wednesday’s mess of millett ”
is perhaps the “fifirmity” of 1706, and “we had three banyan
to four meat days in the week.” Lamb admits that he

FOOD AND CLOTHING 179

is here making the most of his haidships, but his two friends
are equally emphatic. “Our food,” Coleridge wrote to
Mr. Toole, “was portioned, and, excepting on Wednesdays,

I never had a bellyfull. Our appetites were damped, never
satisfied ; and we had no vegetables.” But it is fair to say
that in 1832 he writes of such starvation at the School as
being an affair of the past. Leigh Hunt, the third of the
great literary trio, records that “we were not well fed at
that time, either in quantity or quality. . . . Our breakfast
was bread and water, for the beer was too bad to drink.

• • • Meat only every other day, and that consisting of a
small slice, such as would be given to an infant three or
four years old. . . . Twice a year (I blush to think of the
eagerness with which it was looked for !) a dinner of pork.”
Leigh Hunt did not apparently know that he owed the
last orgie to the express directions of a donor of £250 in
the year 1734, who desired to inaugurate a dinner of “either
pork or veal Roasted or Boyled as [the Governors] thought
propper.” I am able to supplement this criticism by an
account I obtained a year or two ago from my old friend
Mr. Deputy Cox of Newgate Street, who has since gone
to his rest at a ripe old age. He entered Christ’s Hospital
just thirty years after Lamb left it. He too had meat,
he told me, only on four days of the week. It “was served
on wooden trenchers, and, though good, it was generally
dry” ; but he backs up the evidence of the others by adding
that “ there was not sufficient for big boys ; all were served
alike, and there was no asking for more.” Nevertheless
the hale old Deputy used to attribute his vigour at ninety
years of age to the fact that he had breakfasted at School on
bread and water.

Great changes have taken place since Deputy Cox’s school
days. The wooden trenchers and the wooden spoons have
retired to the Museum. I was myself in at the death of
the latter at Hertford in 1875. “Small beer,” or any other
kind of beer is no longer served out as a matter of course, as
it was in my time, and the programme for the week, which
by the kindness of the present Steward, Mr. A. VV. Lockhart,

i8o ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

I am enabled to set off against that of the year 1678, is
an intimation that if the young gentlemen are not satisfied,
they ought to be ! Mr. Lockhart has detailed for me the
dinners provided for the school during the week beginning
July 7th, 1901, and for the sake of brevity I will take the
fare of Ward II. in which I was formerly “Grecian.” On
Sunday they had lamb and mint sauce, with new potatoes,
stewed gooseberries and custard. On Monday, mutton with
new potatoes and green peas, with cheese to follow. On
Tuesday fried lemon-soles and new potatoes, and boiled
jam pudding. Wednesday was a “leave” and those who
stayed in school had beef, new potatoes, and cheese. Thurs-
day gave them lamb and beef with lettuce and cheese.
Friday, beef and mutton with new potatoes and summer
cabbages, and cheese. Saturday, beef and mutton with new
potatoes, and cheese.

There is one aspect of the food question, in which most
boys are interested, namely, the possibility of buying what
is technically termed “tuck.” Reference is made elsewhere*
to a woman who combined “ cobbling” with the keeping of a
tuck-shop in 1666, and who evidently sold drink as well as
food to the children. But from the close of the seventeenth
century the Governors appear to have set their face against
any such traffic, which they took as a personal insult to their
commissariat. Thus in 1684 “ Mr Bennett, smith, and Mr
Court, translator to this House, both living within the bounds
of this house, did dayly practice ” the selling of “ drink,
bread, and fruit within the bounds ... to the children, as
if they had not enough allowed them for their dayly sub-
sistance.” The culprits clearly did not take the indignation
of the Committee very seriously, for they requested three
months’ grace in which “ to dispose of such things as they
had on their hands, after which they would take in no more
beere.” But the order was peremptory ; they must stop at
once. Court, by the way, was an unmitigated pluralist, for
in addition to his tuck-shop, he was the “ translator ” or
cobbler, and he received an additional stipend for looking

* See p. 252.

THE GIFFS AND JOHNNY'S

FOOD AND CLOTHING 181

after the School Clock. Again, in 1700, a beadle pleaded
for “ the same liberty his predecessor had for his wife to sell
apples ginger bread and other small things at their door
[probably in the Cloisters], To him the Committee most
solemnly replied with a resolution “ that neither Simpson
nor any other officer or person whatsoever shall sell or cause
to be sold anything within the Verge of this house that’s
eatable or drinkable to any of the children.” At the same
time they instructed the Steward to forbid the children to
buy. But even while this fiat was in force a Governor stated
that he “ has for some time observed that Pemberton one of
the Beadles or his wife drives a Trade in his House of selling
Apples, Plumb-pudding, white-pot, and many other things
amongst the children ” ; and again the Governors stood on
their dignity, contending that this “tends not only to the
prejudice of the children’s health, but alsoe is a disreputation
and scandall to the House, it looking as if the children wanted
victualls.” The fact is, of course, that the Governors were
attempting the impossible. The Hospital at the time was an
absolute thoroughfare to which hawkers could get admission
like anyone else, and the beadles no doubt reasoned that they
might as well have the advantage of any trade that was
going. The only remedy was the one afterwards adopted
of organising the tuck-trade, a system of profit-sharing being
introduced in 1799. Thereafter the minutes of the Com-
mittee for some years contain a half-yearly statement of
what had been earned by “the sale of Fruit and other Articles
to the Children.” The first six months showed a profit of
^55, the second of £57, and in two years the results had
risen to nearly £200 annually. The division was made on
the principle that two beadles who sold the “ Articles ” re-
ceived 5 per cent, on their sales, and the balance was equally
distributed among the six beadles. Trollope adds the
Steward to those who subsequently divided the spoil. In
his time the official “ shop ” was in the Cloister under
Whittington’s Library, and a school currency had been
substituted for coin of the realm. The “ shop ” that looms
large in the memory of the living has been situated in the

182 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

abutment on the opposite side of the Garden and is
associated with the honoured name of “Johnny Fletcher.”
It may be hoped that at West Horsham, where appetites
should not be less keen than they are in Newgate Street,
there may be a return to the official “shop” of a century
ago, and, if in the country the beadle will cease from
troubling, the profits might be placed at the disposal of the
Games Committee.

DRESS

If there arises some centuries hence a historian of Christ’s
Hospital, West Horsham, he may have something of interest
to tell about diet, but it is hardly likely that he will find
anything entrancing in the dress. Nobody supposes that
the present habit will long survive the removal of the
“ Blues ” to the country ; indeed, it would probably serve
the purpose of the new state of things better to introduce
at once a more appropriate costume. But no survival in
our day, when survivals get fewer by sure degrees, could
be happier than that which has preserved almost intact
through all the changes of three centuries and a half the
dress of the period of the first foundation. The buildings,
the fare, the recreations, the educational system, have all
been transformed. The dress alone recalls the Tudors. It
is however difficult to decide what particular dress of that
period it recalls. Leigh Hunt believed “it was the ordinary
dress of children in humble life.” It has been maintained
that it is the garb of the ordinary London ’prentice-boy of
that day. Personally I am not anxious to know what it
represents, if it is not a development of the monastic habit
associated with the very stones of the place. The details
of the dress as it prevailed well on into the nineteenth
century suggest this rather than any other interpretation.
There is the long outer cloak, the long coarse cassock (of
yellow) underneath, and the girdle to keep the cloak to-
gether. The one sign which I admit makes in favour of a
lay rather than a monastic origin is the small epaulette on
the coats, which is familiar in every Holbein tunic. I am
also bound to admit that the records assign no particular

FOOD AND CLOTHING

183

“ inwardness ” to the clothes ordered for the children. The
first “Annual Accompt” contains the original tailor’s bill
for the earliest batch of children, which was paid in December
1552. It mentions “shoes,” “canvas,” “ kersies,” “cappes,”
“ cottons,” and “ knytte hosen.” The first statement on the
subject from outside is supplied by Stow, who got it from
Richard Grafton. “On Christmas day [1552] in the after-
noone, while the Lord Mayor and Aldermen rode to Powles,
the children of Christ’s Hospitall stood from Saint Lawrence
Lane end in Cheape, towards Powles, all in one liuery of
russet cotton,” whereas at the following Easter “they were
in blew at the Spittle, and so haue continued euer since.”
It has been assumed that this statement, of whose accuracy
there can be no doubt, implies a change in the colour of
the coats, so that the “ Blue-coat ” was once “ Red-coat,” or
whatever hue Stow means by “ russet.” But a glance at the
items in the tailor’s bill already given will show that no
coats were ordered up to Christmas, while the “ kersies ”
procured in November 1552 are almost certainly the long
under-coats reaching almost to the feet, which later genera-
tions called “ yellows.” I think there can be no doubt that,
till more funds came in, the children had to be content with
these for the time being. Their colour is not specified and
may well have been Stow’s “ russet,” and the want of other
covering may explain why so many of the first batch of
children, in the memorable phrase of John Howes, “dyed
down righte.” They had to wait for their coats all that
winter. The “ Accompt ” shows an occasional payment of
small sums, such as “ for the makynge of iiii wastes and
ii dubletts. ii3 iiiid,” but by April the coats were finished
and “ for the makinge of cccxxii cotes for the children ” the
tailor was paid at the rate of “ vid the pere.” This entry
substantiates Stow’s statement that they appeared at the
Spital Sermons in “ blew,” or what he elsewhere calls
“ plonket coates,” with red caps, and it adds probability to
the so-called Holbein picture of the presentation of the
Charter (which took place two months later), in which the
blue coats appear. It may be noted that nothing is said

184 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

about the purchase of Linen for the “ bands ” or ruffs for
the neck, and the presumption is that the Governors were
in a position to secure this without payment. Edward
allowed them to receive a quantity of Church linen, and
at the first Court, of which the minutes survive (December
7th, 1556), a motion was passed “that a request might be
made to thinhabitants of euerye p’rishe for their olde
lynnen,” as if it were a matter of course.

Before going into any matters of detail, in which the
records throw light on the nature of the dress, it will be well
to note two rules, which have tended to preserve a rigid
pattern and to make it familiar everywhere. First, no child
was ever permitted at any time to wear any other dress than
the one provided, and it has occasionally been necessary
to enforce this not only in the House but outside it. In
1646 “ it is found that diuers Children kept in the Cittie
belonging to his house doe not some tyme weare their blew
coates and some tymes not weare their yellow peticoats as
they ought to doe.” The penalty for such conduct is to be
“ utterly dismist from the paym1 and clothing of this
hospitall ipso facto.” The rule, of course, prevails to the
present time for all members of the Foundation, except
Grecians during vacations, though it is recognised that a boy
may vary his dress, if he is taking exercise. The other rule,
which in my experience there has been no tendency to
transgress, is that nothing must be added to the dress in the
way of improvement. But “ Blues ” have not always been
so contented. Notice was “taken by one of the Governors ”
in 1716 that some of the children “wear fine linnen at their
hands and neck, which if permitted may be of ill conse-
quence, it tending only to pride and the ruin of them.”
Another mention of the same sort of practice, though the
conclusion is not quite consistent with the other, occurs in
1758. “Many of the children,” it runs, “have their Blue
coates after they are delivered to them from the Wardrobe
Bound with Galloon or Ferret, and Button Holes between
those made by the Taylor worked with Silk, and the Girles
their Gowns bound with Galloon or Ferret, which the Nurses

A GRECIAN IN 1816

FOOD AND CLOTHING

185

are paid for by the Children or their Friends,— which if
suffered will be of ill Consequence especially to those
Children who have no friends.” They were therefore
warned that the dress must remain “ uniform without
addition.”

Taking a “ Blue’s ” accoutrements from head to foot, one
comes naturally to the vexed question of caps. The British
public has got so used to pitying the “ Blues ” on the ground
that they must surely be always catching cold, that it will be
surprised to hear of a cap as forming part of the dress at all.
About this, however, there is not the slightest question. We
may take a point in the centre of our period and work back-
wards and forwards from it. In July 1702 a “Mathemat”
decided to “chase.” It was, as will be seen, a habit with
“ Mathemats ” to do so, but this one was exceptional. Most
of them ran away to sea: Ben Herne “chased” because he
wanted to stay at home. But he was honest enough to have
a bundle left at the house of the Chief Clerk, “ wch being
opened in presence of the Committee it appeared they were
the clothes of Ben Herne, viz1 his Blew-coate, Yellow-coate,
Shirt, Shooes, Stockings, Cap, Girdle, and badge.” It has
already been noted that “ cappes ” appear in the first clothing
bill, and the records refer constantly to the ordering of
further consignments, “ against Easter,” in order that the
children may look nice at the Spital. Stow tells us that in
1553 the caps were red, but the only survivors of a now
departed custom are unquestionably blue. As a matter of
industrial history it may be noted that the Committee at one
time (1684, and after) procured them from “Litchfield.”
But, if the model, which prevailed till caps were abolished
in the middle of last century, is any indication of the
original shape, they were never of any use as a head-
covering, being absurdly small. Indeed the only use for
them known by the traditions of the elders was that they
were a convenient means of getting a comfortable drink
at the Pump, and every “Blue” will acknowledge that the
absence of head-gear is not the least acceptable feature of
the dress he is so proud to have worn.

1 86 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

The bands which the boys wear at their necks are more
difficult to trace in the early minutes of the committees.
The Governors of November 1552 paid something for
“ cottons,” which were doubtless to be made into shirts, and
as the bands may fairly be taken to descend from the turn-
over collar of the Tudor period, they were probably attached
at the beginning to the shirts. Indeed I have found no
reference to them at all till 1759, when there was an order
that “ in future the Boys be allowed yearly two Bands only
instead of three.” By that time they were clearly separate
entities, and how they were kept on no one knows. But, as
long as “ Blues ” now living can remember they have been
fastened with pins, to the great detriment of the linen and to
the enhanced value of a pin within the confines of the
Hospital. This strange habit may have prevailed for longer
than one would suppose. For a Matron of the year 1736,
who, I grieve to say, supplied the chronicler with a chance
of using about her that favourite phrase, “disguised in
liquor,” was alleged to have “ embazelled ” some of the
stores committed to her for distribution. Among her de-
falcations is the item of “ 207,082 pins ” — neither more nor
less — valued at ,£10 7s. There must have been considerable
use for the article to give rise to a supply of such quantities.

Everyone knows the fashion of the Christ’s Hospital
coat. Its type has long been fixed, but it has had its
changes like other things. There was a time (1638) when
the fiat went forth that the coats should be “ made with
hooks and lyes, and none with buttons.” How long this
prevailed it is hard to say. Possibly it was still the rule
in 1706 when it was “ordered that consideration shall be
had at some other time about allowing the children a set of
brass buttons yearely.” Buttons were certainly the mode
in 1758 when, as the result of the extravagant habits already
referred to, a committee was called to settle the uniform
beyond all question. “ The Boys Clothes," their resolution
ran, “ shall be made agreeable to a Coat produced to this
Committee with Buttonholes overcast, and the Coats be
always buttoned by the Taylor with White Metal Buttons

FOOD AND CLOTHING

187

with the Head of King Edward the Sixth Founder of this
Hospital.” Many “Blues” can remember this soft metal
button, which has been replaced by one of a more modern
substance, and can recall the tradition to which Leigh Hunt
refers, that the original article was of silver, to suit a storied
coat made of the finest velvet. But few save those who
have worn it know that the lining of the coat, like the
ancient kersey and the modern stocking, is of a brilliant
yellow, and has been so since the year 1638. On June 3rd,
1636, it had been “ordered and agreed that all the Welsh
cottons which shall hereafter be bought into this House for
the use of the children either for petticoates or otherwise
shall be dyed with a yallowe couller,” and eighteen months
later the reason for the change leaks out, when it is decided
(January 23rd, 1638) that the “lynnings” for the coats shall
also be “ dyed yallowe as well as ye petticoates to avoid
vermin by reason the white cottens is held to breed the
same.” I am not chemist enough to say how far their
reasoning was sound ; but there is the fact that yellow as
a large component in the colour scheme of the Christ’s
Hospital dress had a sanitary and not an eesthetic origin.

The “yellow,” a long shapeless smock, which up to 1865
was worn under the coat in winter, and in previous times
was worn summer and winter alike, is variously described
in the records as a “ Kersey ” or “ petticoat.” They were
of course purchased at various times in bulk, as for instance
when in 1676 the Treasurer and several Governors were

requested to go to Blackwell Hall, one of the great mer-

cantile centres and the property of Christ’s Hospital, “to
buy cottons and kersies for the use of the children.” Later,
they got into the way of securing them direct from the

manufacturers, and in 1734 it is stated that the kerseys were

being made “near Halifax in Yorkshire,” whence they came
to London by sea, for the sake of economy. The same
motive entered into the method of disposing both of coats
and kerseys, when they had served their time on the children’s
backs. There was an order in 1686 that the nurses were “to
bring into the Wardrob all the Children’s old Coates, as,

1 88 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

when any of the Nurses shall have occasion for any old
Coates to mend others, or to make Mopps,” the Wardrobe-
Keeper can give them out. The new coats came in at
Easter, and a batch of the discarded coats was usually sent
down to clothe the Hertford boys. It was the rule of the
House, at any rate in 1760, that “the yellow coat be washed
once in a quarter of a year.”

To make this survey complete it is necessary to mention
the breeches, and it must be confessed that their annals are
briefer than those of the other items in the dress. They did
not come into vogue until 1736, when there is a pitiable
mention in the minutes of “ the great inconveniency more
especially attending the sick and weakly children in this
House for want of Breeches.” Even then they were not
universally adopted but were given to such “ sick and weakly
children as the Doctor or Surgeon or either of them shall at
any time think necessary,” and in the first instance they were
made of leather. The decision as to the “ uniform ” for
every boy as settled in 1758 makes no mention of them
at all. But by 1760 it was considered that the boys should
have “ each yearly two pair of Breeches made of Russia drab,
instead of the Leather Breeches they now have.” The ex-
pression “ Russia drab ” may serve to describe the breeches
still worn by the rank and file. It is one of the coveted
privileges of Greciandom to wear breeches that make some
pretence of fitting and are built of a less out-of-the-way
material.

Of the famous stockings, which will soon cease to be a
daily topic with the rude boy in the City streets, the records
of the Hospital are almost silent. But they make up for
it by saying a great deal about the shoes, which seem to
have caused considerable difficulty. The first instance I
have found of trouble in this department occurred in 1637,
when the Committee found that “ the house hath been much
wronged in the shooes, and that the prizes are sett downe
in divers orders but not of what goodnes of Leather they
should bee made.” They were paying at the rate of fourteen
shillings the dozen pairs, and ought to get them for less.

FOOD AND CLOTHING

189

They thought that “one halfe of the shooes being of the
biggest size shall be made of good neats leather liquored,
and Tallowed soles, and the other halfe to be made of good
Calues Leather and Tallowed soles.” Six months later the
Translator — for such was the not unhappy title of the
Hospital cobbler — gave notice to leave as he could not make
it pay, and in 1695 the succeeding Translator, a lady, also
put in a complaint that she was losing money by her
contract because “she hath not ye benefitt of small sized
shoes amongst ye greater in respect the Hospital hath
admitted no children for three years last past.” Again
the Translator of 1661, one Joseph Martin, pleaded for
an increase of salary on account of “ the excessive deereness
of leather,” because the number of the children has con-
siderably increased and because “he hath mended the
childrens shooes that are called by the name of Mr. Aldworth’s
children.” The Committee came to an arrangement with
him, but it clearly did not settle the difficulty for long.
The everyday shoes of 1669 were so bad that the children
“are in danger of their healths,” while in 1735 the children
were “ in general almost bear-foot by reason of the length
of time of their not having shoes from Easter to Bar-
tholomewtide ” (no very long space for a pair to last).
However it was in 1735 that the Committee, discarding the
handiwork of the “Translator,” except for mere “translating,”
decided to procure the shoes from Northampton at two
shillings a pair ; whereupon there was less to complain
of as regards the durability of the goods supplied. But
every generation has been compelled to make its feet fit
the shoes, — which has not tended to the shapeliness of
Christ’s Hospital feet.

As the girls of the Hospital have for some years past
adopted a comparatively modern costume, it may be well to
add a word as to their dress, about which the records are
unfortunately not very communicative, nor does the wordy
Trollope think the matter worth notice. Happily its
picturesque character is not likely to be forgotten, for there
are statues at Hertford and an admirable picture in the

190 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Museum, which preserve the details for us. That the school
dress must always be worn, and none other, was the rule
for them as well as for the boys, and an extract given above
shows that it was equally illegal for a feminine taste for
finery to add “galloon” or “ ferret” to the accepted pattern.
There seems to have been an occasional variation of colour,
for in 1717 there was reported to be need of “a sufficient
supply of green say to be made into aprons for the use of
the Maiden children at Hertford,” while in 1759 it was
agreed that they should “ be allowed yearly in future 3 new
blue aprons, 2 of wch are to be deliver’d Clean to each girl,
weekly.” The special committee that sat in March 1758,
besides settling the amount of under-linen to be provided
for them, arranged that they should “ have three Peaks,
Three Coifs, and Four Pair of Stockings every Year.” With
them, as with the boys, there was more trouble about their
shoes than about the rest of their clothing. For a long
time they submitted to be shod on the same pattern as
their male colleagues, but in 1724 the Committee agreed
to a motion “ in behalf of the girles of this House that they
may be allowed high heel’d shoes in the Room of the shoes
they have been used to wear in comon with the Boyes.”
Such a concession to fashion seems to have obviated further
complaints.

CHAPTER XI.

THE SCHOOL AT CHURCH

“ The Christ’s Hospital boy is a religious character.” — Charles Lamb.
“We rivalled the monks in the religious part of our duties.” — Leigh Hunt.

SCHOOL so closely connected in its origin with an

ecclesiastical foundation as Christ’s Hospital with the
Grey Friars was bound to maintain the union of interest
between the two. It was therefore only natural, when the
minster of the Franciscans became the church of the
neighbouring parishes, that Christ Church should serve as
the chapel of the school. It was over three hundred feet
long. It had a large choir and an enormous nave, and must
have been well supplied with side chapels, which could have
been set apart for the use of the children. Anyhow, no
chapel was ever erected within the walls of the Hospital.
The hall had its pulpit from the latter part of the seven-
teenth century, and in recent years the old hall’s successor
has been comfortably adapted to the requirements of an
evening service. The “ Blues,” in fact, with certain excep-
tions to be noticed presently, have always formed part and,
for the last quarter of a century, a very large proportion
of the congregation of Christ Church.

So it will be expected that the Hospital’s records should
have something to say of the history of this close bond
between the parish church and the school ; and it may be
confessed at once that the history does not always speak of
placid contentment. A self-governing institution has a
natural bias against being considered part of the life of
a parish. Energetic and impetuous vicars, and, worse still,

192 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

vicars who were impetuous without the energy, were apt to
assert their right to “ visit ” within the precincts, and the
authorities of the school were just as apt to cut the visit
short at the lodge-gates. On the other hand, so large an in-
stitution in a parish of small area could never confer any
great advantage on the parish, and has sometimes been a
source of serious loss, as will presently appear.

We have already been introduced to “one Thomas
Bryckett, Vicar of Christes Church,” the earliest occupant
of the benefice under Henry VIII.’s Letters, whose lodging
was in the monastery before it was fitted for its future
tenants. The arrangements made for his removal by the
Governors seem to have been amicable enough, and he
doubtless found a comfortable lodging in the parish.
However, ten years later I find a reference in the earliest
surviving Court Book (September 27th, 1557), to the ap-
parent homelessness of the vicar. He “ specially sueth for ”
the “ next advoydance of one of the new tements belonginge
to St. Bartholomewes Hospitall lyinge in Christe proche
(parish).” At the “ speciall instance and request of my
lorde maior,” the vicar was allowed to have one of these
houses at the rent then paid, “ duringe so longe tyme as the
same vicar shall continewe Vicar of the said Christe
Churche.” The strange thing is that the vicar at once let the
house on lease to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital during his life
for £4 a year ; so the apparent result of his petition was
an addition of that sum yearly to his stipend of £26 13^. 4d.
It should be added that of course this gift is not represented
by the present vicarage, which was rented by the Rev.
Michael Gibbs from St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, and by
a generous arrangement became the freehold of the benefice
under his successor.

But though there was no corporate connexion between
church and hospital, matters were bound to arise to draw the
two together. For example, Lady Ramsey, who was buried
in Christ Church, “ did devise and give for the preachinge
of two sermons yearely in Christ Church, ye one on Snt
Stephens Day in ye afternoon and the other the first Sunday

THE SCHOOL AT CHURCH

i93

in Lent xls yearely.” But it turned out in 1604 that the
hour of the St. Stephen’s day service was inconvenient, “ for
that the Aldermen and gouernours that shoulde be presente
therat cannot bee there so soone for that many of them dine
at the Lord Maiors and Sherifes the same day, whereby the
time is late before they can come.” So, without any
apparent reference to the vicar, the Court decreed that the
St. Stephen’s Day service “ shalbee referred till 4 of the clock
in the same afternoone and the other sermon for the first
Sunday in lent to continue as it is.” Lady Ramsey was not
the only benefactor who thought that it was a good thing to
send the Governors to church on definite occasions. Custom,
as elsewhere referred to, has decided that the Lord Mayor
and Corporation should attend at Christ Church on St.
Matthew’s Day by invitation of the Governors, and that the
Governors should attend at Easter by invitation of the Lord
Maygr and the Corporation. The Protestantism of the
Hospital showed itself in a Gunpowder Plot sermon on
November 5th, endowed by Mr. Humble in 1640, and in the
bequest of Thomas Barnes for a sermon on November 17th,
the accession day of Queen Elizabeth. The Gunpowder
Plot might be aptly remembered in a church which con-
tained a Digby tomb, and the portrait of Barnes, which
hangs in the Court Room, makes it no wonder that he was
determined to perpetuate “the completion of the Reforma-
tion in England ” ; for his complexion is perfect Puritanism.
Of the endowment which he left for the purpose the
Charity Commissioners have decreed that other use should
be made, but the practice of the Reformation sermon is
being maintained, so long as the boys of the Hospital are
resident in the parish. Another ceremony at Christ Church,
for which it is the duty of the Governors to make arrange-
ments, is connected with the name of Sir John Gayer, who
is more familiarly known as the founder of the “ Lion ”
Sermon at St. Catherine Cree Church. He was not only
a brave traveller and a courageous Alderman, as Charles
and the Protector alike discovered, but he was also keenly
interested in Christ’s Hospital. In October 1648, at a time
o

194 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

of national unrest, the Governors showed their sense of his
public spirit by electing him President. At least, so I
interpret their action. For in the spring of that year, Gayer,
then Chief Magistrate, was required to assist in providing
a subsidy for the Commonwealth men. The ward-lists were
to be gone through by each alderman, and men who could
afford to subscribe £50 were to be ticked off. Gayer
refused, as he had done when Charles made similar demands
in 1640. He was ousted from the Mansion House, and sent
to the Tower, a Parliamentarian being made Lord Mayor
in his place. He was released in June 1648, and in October
the election of President of the Hospital took place.
Among the candidates were the Parliamentarian Lord
Mayor and the Lord Mayor Elect ; but the Governors chose
Sir John Gayer. During the few following months he was
occupied in settling the details of his gift to Christ’s
Hospital, the final “draught of the gift of Sir John Gare ”
being submitted to him in May 1649. He was President
long enough to preside over three general Courts, or rather
less than a year.

To return to his connexion with Christ Church. His will
directs that every eighth year it shall be read audibly to the
Governors at a Court-meeting ; after which they are to go
to the Church to hear a sermon. He wished certain gifts
to be made at the same time to the preacher, the Treasurer,
the Grammar Master, and the like, and he ordained “ a dinner
in roast beef or other cates for the children.” The total of
the yearly gift was .£25, and in the seven intervening years
the money was employed in apprenticing the children when
they left school. The sermon was last preached in Christ
Church in November 1897.

There is one other occasion of the same sort which brings
the Hospital and the Church together each year. Among
the many charities, which make Christ’s Hospital much more
a vast benevolent institution than merely a school, is the
one connected with Mistress Sarah Bowerman and dating
from 1727. It gives pensions “to such and so many honest,
reduced, and distressed widows (not being pensioners) of

195

THE SCHOOL AT CHURCH

traders, tradesmen, or others, in the out parts of the City
of London, and in the out parts adjacent on the north side
of the river Thames, that were not or should not be entitled
to receive any of the charitable gifts or annuities” of the
City. She also arranged that yearly on January 7th, being
the anniversary of the death of her sister, “ some good and
sufficient preacher” should be procured for a service at
Christ Church, to be attended by all her pensioners, “ unless
disabled by sickness or otherwise, in which case they should
procure some other matronlike women to appear and attend
for them.”

These instances will serve to show that the relations be-
tween the parish church and the school involve a certain
amount of intimacy. But the proper way to realise the
true connexion of the two is to remember that from begin-
ning to end, with very slight breaks, Christ Church without
ceasing to be a parish church has served as the school
chapel. Up to the time when the Hospital decided to have
evening service for the boys in the Hall, it can hardly be
questioned that the arrangement involved some loss to the
boys. In a school which has no Sunday service of its own
both masters and scholars are at an undoubted disadvan-
tage. On the other hand the arrangement of the last
hundred years, by which the school takes part in an ordinary
parish service in the morning and has its own private service
in the evening, may be of unusual benefit — if the parish
church makes an effort to meet the needs of the younger
part of the congregation.

But it is quite easy to pardon the first Governors for not
building a chapel in the Hospital. The huge Abbey stood
at its very gate, and there must have been sufficient room in
Queen Margaret’s choir alone to accommodate both the
scholars and the parishioners. The “ west church ” or nave
seems to have been let to a schoolmaster, after it was cleared
of the plunder taken in the war with France in 1546; but
a sentence in the records of a long controversy between the
Hospital and the parish after the Fire makes it clear that
worship of some sort was held in the nave. For the parish

196 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

in 1696 reminded the Governors that since the Fire they
had not paid the usual £6 a year for a Morning Lecture in
the Church; and the Governors replied that the Lecture
was no longer given ; it was to take place “ in the lower
parte of the Church and not to the parish.” But as a
matter of fact a gallery was ultimately erected for the
children at the west end of the choir of the old church ;
indeed their place was described at the time of the build-
ing of the present church as being “where the organ is
now erecting.” The School’s records are not very clear
on the point, but the records of the parish are fortu-
nately rather more definite. Here are the minutes of a
vestry held on December 14th, 1657 : “ Forasmuch as
the Children of Christe Hospitall doe on Saboth days sitt
behind the Pulpitt in the upper part of the said Church
where (it is conceaved) they cannot heare and so receave noo
benefitt by the word, Therefore for their better accomodation
the Governors of the said Hospitall are about to erect for
them a large gallery crosse ye body of the said Church below
the pulpitt, which will also (as is alleadged) be a great helpe
to the Minister in contracting and keepeing his voice in a
narrower roome and compasse ; But ye Parishioners ” — the
minute goes on to explain — thought the gallery would be
“a great defaceing” of the church and no help to the
minister’s voice. So they petitioned against it ; but in vain,
for the Governors had their way.

Wherever they sat, their attendance at the old church
came to an end with the great Fire. It may be questioned
whether the Fire or Sir Christopher Wren is guilty of the
ultimate disappearance of the Franciscan Abbey. It will
be seen in the account of the effects of the Fire on the
Hospital’s buildings that the windows of the Church were
“ very little damnified ” ; and here also the parochial
minutes are of use. A few lines from the proceedings of
a Vestry on November 3rd, 1670, speak of the church-
wardens laying out money “ for the cleareing the upper and
Lower Churches, removeing Stones and makeing Doores
and other things necessary thereabouts,” as if the main part

CHRIST CHURCH IN 1816

197

THE SCHOOL AT CHURCH

of the fabric were still standing. Anyhow the children had
to be accommodated elsewhere, and it was natural that they
should find a refuge in St. Bartholomew the Great. But in
1672 the Committee was asked to treat with the Parishioners
for seats in the “ tabernacle ” (the temporary wooden building
erected within the walls of the choir of Christ Church)

“ it being found very inconvenient for the children to go to
Great St. Barthus church.” So the Committee “ went to the
Tabernacle att Christ’s Church and there reveiwed the in-
tended place for the children of this Hospitall to sitt in.
Mr Goodchild the carpenter being present demanded £15 for
the doing thereof, the Hospitall finding all materialls.” But
they offered him £12, and “bid him not meddle” unless he
would keep within that sum. In 1680 the school was once
more attending the church in West Smithfield, which the
nineteenth century restored into one of the wonders of
England. “ It was agreed” (February 3rd, 1680) “that the
Lecturer of St. Bartholomew the great shall have x8 per qr
paid to him as the gift of this house for soe long time as the
children shall go to that church, and no longer ; the parish
haveing been very kind in the entertainment of the children
att their church, since the late fire hath burnt downe Christ
Church.” But it would appear that the preacher did not
long enjoy his “x8 per qr”; for in December, 1683, the
Treasurer records that he has ordered, “ upon a presumption
of the concurrence of the Almoners, the children’s seats to
be matted for their more reverent behaviour in their change
of jestures in the time of the Divine Service in the Church
— it being said that in kneeling they made more than
ordinary noise which is now prevented.” I take this to
imply that they were once more in the “Tabernacle,” which
probably stood while Wren’s new church was built up round
it. By 1685, ^ was time to consider where the children
should be located in the new edifice, and a deputation waited
on Sir Christopher Wren “concerning a gallary to be built
in Christ Church for the children of this Hospital to sit in.
He promised a gallary should be built at the publick charge
as soone as conveniently may be.”

I9S ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

But, as the gallery question was not to be settled all at
once without some loss of amiability on both sides, it will be
well to notice that a certain amount of friction had arisen
between the Church and the Hospital at this period.
Hitherto, except for the difficulty about the foundlings, they
had lived at peace, and in the matter of the foundlings there
was sufficient blame on both sides to have produced a settle-
ment of differences. It was true that children “dropped” at
the School gates became chargeable to the parish ; but any
stir at the Church was calculated to increase the traffic
zvithiti the Hospital and with it the chance of laying children
down in the cloisters. In 1645, when the Puritan preachers
were beginning to stir the metropolis, the beadles were
ordered to be especially watchful “to prevent the laying
downe of children on ye lecture dayes in Christ Church
. . . which may happen by the concourse of people passing
to and fro upon those dayes.” But the Hospital began
to be more and more jealous of its rights. It was, for
instance, customary to employ the parish sexton for digging
any graves that were needed in the Hospital’s burying-
ground, at an inclusive fee of twenty shillings a year. The
new sexton appointed in 1 666 was told that “the Treasurer
would not give liberty to him or to any person to use the
Churchyard for a drying-place for clothes or otherwise what-
soever.” The churchyard in question must of course have
lain inside the Hospital, if the Treasurer had any control
over it, and is obviously the graveyard beneath the east
end of the Hall, which was disused by Act of Parliament
in 1795. Again, during the incumbency of William Jenkins
(1643-62), the Presbyterian who was ousted at the Restora-
tion and spent the last two-and-twenty years of his life
in Newgate, he “did hold and enjoy a passage through a
door made in the Brickwall on the Northside of the Town-
ditch, which doore was to continue unto him but dureing his
being Minister of Christ Church, and no longer.” On his ex-
pulsion, this privilege was withdrawn, as being of “ daingerous
consequence,” and the Minutes are unfortunately silent as to
the use which the passage was to the vicar.

THE SCHOOL AT CHURCH

199

Under his successor, Richard Henchman, relations seem
to have been amicable. In 1671 “upon the request of the
inhabitants of Butcher Hall Lane, it was ordered by the
Court that a Doore to the passage that leads out of this
Hosp. into Butchershall Lane shall be opened every morn-
ing by the Porter of the Hosp : and lockt up at nights as
anciently.” This, of course, refers to the cobble-paved road-
way on the north side of Christ Church. The parish is
possessed of a strip six feet wide from the church wall,
the Hospital owns the rest, and the gates are still closed
at night by arrangement between school and parish. But
the next vicar, Edmund Shering (or Sherring) came in
for a long period of dissension, beginning in 1678 and
lasting throughout his incumbency. The chief cause of
trouble was an action of Sir Christopher Wren’s, which
involved undoubted injustice to the parish. As Surveyor-
General he resolved that the nave of Christ Church should
not be rebuilt, but the ground left as a churchyard. He
therefore pulled down what the Fire had partially spared.
The Hospital was employing him to rebuild or repair its
premises, and there is not much doubt that he procured
an order from the Court of Aldermen and the Bishop of
London to “ make a new ward . . . next the scite of the late
Parish Church of Christ Ch. ... to take down part of the
old wall (which is not to be rebuilt and was formerly called
the Old Church) ... to the length of 162 feet or there-
abouts.” This was decided in September 1678, and natural
objections were raised by St. Bartholomew’s Hospital as
the patrons and by the parishioners in vestry. The former
withdrew their opposition, but Mr. Shering and the vestry
protested, as well they might. They “ think not fitt,” they
said, “to consent to it nor are they willing to part with
or that any part should be alienated to any other use.”
In the following January they claimed compensation both
for their north and for their west wall, and were told that
the Governors had an order about the north wall, on which
the “ Latin School ” was subsequently erected, and that
the west wall had been pulled down “ by order of Sir

200 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Christoph. Wren Surveigher Gena11.” As for the “incon-
veniences” the parish had suffered, “the Committee re-
commended the Court to build them a vestry house of one
roome of the same length and breadth” and to mend “the
ffence on yc Northside of the Tabernacle,” — no extravagant
compensation for a loss that to-day would represent some
thousands of pounds.

But the Governors had not done with Mr. Shering. In
November 1685 they brought him to book over Mr. Humble’s
Gunpowder Plot sermon, already alluded to. “ Mr Treasr
was desired to write a letter to Sr Wm Humble to know
his pleasure, whether the xx® given by his father for a sermon
to be made and preached in Christs Church on 5th November
should be paid to Mr. Shering the Minister thereof, who
neither made nor preached a sermon on that day, but read a
Homily, excusing himselfe that he had not timely notice.”
At their next meeting they had “a considerable debate
about this affaire,” and were “satisfyed that Mr Shering
although he had notice did neither make nor preach a
sermon on the said 5th of Novr last . . . and hath noe just
claims to the said xx8.” Whether Mr. Shering wanted
to have his revenge or not, there was soon some further
difficulty, this time (1689) about the position of the new
organ, which happily remains to this day as a monument
of the skill of Renatus Harris. The church authorities
wanted it where it now stands ; the school claimed that
this has been their place in the old building ; the parishioners
replied “ that they sat there onely by permission, having noe
right thereto.” So the quarrel came before the Bishop’s
vicar-general, who decided “ that there is not any place
in the said church more convenient” for the organ than
the one selected ; and further, that the children of the
Hospital lately displaced by the cutting downe of the
seates,” being “hindered from the sight and hearing of the
minister, be conveniently seated in the gallaryes on the
North and South side of the Church next adjoining to
the gallary at the West End of the same to the number
of eighty.” After this came “a large debate” between the

THE SCHOOL AT CHURCH 201

parties, with the result that the parish agreed that the
Officers and children of this Hospitall have a right to come
to the said church as they have hitherto done, and shall
not be hindered by them (the parishioners) from coming
to their gallary.” The decision of the parish was a wise
one, for the Governors have always been generous to the
church in supporting any object in which the comfort of
the boys was concerned. For the moment they were busy
making arrangements for the occupation of the gallery,
and four days after the above concordat was established,
an order went out that “ the Steward of this Hospitall shall
sit in the gallery of Christ Ch. on the North Side and the
Matron on the South side, that soe between them they may
view and observe ” their respective charges.

But there were matters of conflict outstanding for the
next seven or eight years. The parish still went on de-
manding some rent for its lost church wall. They also
asked for rent “ for the church-yard neare the sick-ward
of this Hospitall, which the parish have had the use of
for many yeares (the Hospitall holding the same by lease
of the City of London).” The Minister also wanted to be
paid “ flees of several officers according to the table of fees.”
But they got no satisfaction, being informed on the last
point that the School officers “ have time out of mind and
may still have liberty to be buryed in the Cloysters and
their Churchyard, without any duty for the said ground
or otherwayes, save only what’s paid to the Sexton, Bearers,
&c. . . . And besides the curate receives 20£ p. ann. for
buryall and christening of the Hospitall children” — a strange
course, considering that several of the resident masters were
in holy orders and would have thought themselves passing
rich on an addition of that sum to their salary.

Still, peace was proclaimed before the close of the seven-
teenth century, and the energies of the Governors were
directed towards seeing that the staff and the children were
regular in their attendance. Indeed, in 1689 it was agreed
that the children “ might have liberty to goe wednesdayes
and ffrydayes to the Lent sermons that are appointed to be

202 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

preached in Christ’s Church.” The officers had a pew in the
north gallery, and in 1698 Mr. Parrey, the chief clerk, was
specially reprimanded for preferring the Court Room and
his cups to divine service. “ Mrs Matron ” was always to be
accompanied by the “nurses” in the south-side “pew just
before the Maiden children.” It may be added that the
gallery accommodation in Christ Church was obviously
increased after Wren’s time, as appears from the colour of
the panelling of the two eastern portions on each side, these
bays being used by the children of the Ward Schools. Of
the horrors and the giddy tremors, which were the fate of
those who had to sit in these seats, it is not necessary to
speak. But it would be safe to say that up to the year 1896,
when the boys left the galleries for good, Christ Church has
witnessed as much patience in tribulation as any sacred
building in the kingdom. In my own time, we only attended
morning service, which lasted two very long hours ; but
there are plenty of “ Blues ” alive who had to double the
agony by going again in the afternoon. But back in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the children had to
endure the further infliction of “ Catechise ” in the evening.
Nor was there any relaxation at the times when the church
was shut up “ upon occasion of beautifying and repairing ” ;
for instance, in 1708, just after Wren’s tower was finished,
there was need of some other arrangement for the children’s
devotions. Mountfort, the Grammar Master, was sent for
and asked if he would read service and preach in the Hall,
but answered that “he would desire to be excused from
preaching.” “ Catechise ” was enough for him. So Mr.
Betts, curate of Christ Church, was hired “ for twenty
shillings for every Sunday ” to read prayers in Hall “ fore-
noon and afternoon and preach a sermon in the forenoon
and afternoon.” One can hardly imagine a modern-style
head master allowing his ministerial functions to lapse into
the hand of a neighbouring curate.

This chapter would not be complete without some
reference to the music of the services, with which the
Hospital authorities had much to do. Robert Dow’s Song

THE SCHOOL AT CHURCH

203

School, as detailed elsewhere,* involved the attendance of his
boys in “ the quire of Christ Church,” and William Parker’s
foundation of 1613 meant that the parishioners should
employ ^10 a year in training a “Blue” to “serve and be
employed in playing of the organs of the said church.”
But in 1642, perhaps to please the Puritans, the organ was
taken down, and it is doubtful whether the bequest has ever
been put into force with anything like regularity. However,
it does not require either Dow’s gift or Parker’s to show
that in a congregation, which two hundred years ago
contained at least 900 school-children, the success or the
collapse of the singing was largely in their hands. I have
so far discovered only one instance, which may be either
historically rare or a specimen of many that might have
been recorded ; I hope the former. It is dated September
30th, 1737, and speaks of “the irregular and Disorderly
singing of the Children in Christ Church to the great
interruption and disturbance of the Congregation.” To
remedy so sad a state of things the Governors arranged
that Mr. Herwood, the Music Master, should teach the boys
of the Singing School the proper Psalm tunes (probably set
to a metrical version). Then the Song School boys “ when
perfect therein shall every night in the week (Sundays
excepted) goe by rotation into the severall wards imediately
after supper, and instruct the other children in the same.
The said Boys to be silenced in the Church, Ward, and Hall
until perfect therein.” At the time when I write, the
morning service in Christ Church depends far more than in
1737 on the participation of the “ Blues,” and it may be
doubted if there is a heartier service in the kingdom. The
pity of it, that within a few months their places will know
them no more !

See above, p. 137.

CHAPTER XII.

OF GREAT OCCASIONS

“ Perhaps there is not a foundation in the country so truly English.”

Leigh Hunt.

IT is obvious that a Foundation situated where Christ’s
Hospital is, wearing a habit such as the “Blues” still
affect, and with the prestige (if nothing more practical) of
various Royal patrons, should have an almost prescriptive
right to take its part in any ceremonial functions that turn
aside the City for a moment from the pursuit of gain. It
will be remembered that at the Jubilee of 1897 the boys
were privileged to take their stand by the Mansion House ;
but it is not so generally known that among the spectators
in front of the Mansion House that day was an aged clergy-
man,* who as head “ Grecian ” had presented an address to
her Majesty on the day she first entered the City as Queen
sixty years before, and who is still living in 1901. If it were
necessary-, it would be easy to complete a chain of such
public appearances of the “ Blues ” link by link right back
to the later Tudors. An instance or two will suffice. The
first of these congratulatory orations is usually connected
with the name of Edmund Campion, the famous Jesuit. He
is supposed (though for want of the earliest list of names
the fact is incapable of proof) to have entered Christ’s
Hospital at the age of twelve during the first year of its
foundation, and to have been chosen by competition among
the London Grammar Schools to address Queen Mary on
her entry into London in 1553. The Hospital’s natural
feeling of attachment to the Stuarts was no bar to its

* The Rev. Frederick Gifford Nash, vicar of Clavering.

204

205

OF GREAT OCCASIONS

readiness to do honour to “Dutch William,” and we find
an order of the Court of Aldermen for “ a stand in St. Paul’s
Churchyard, about five and twenty fo'ote southward from
Mr. Barnardiston’s shop at the North entrance in the yard,
and soo aboute one hundred foote southward for ye accom-
modation of the Blew-coate children ... on Saturday the
29th of this instant October [1692] at the time of their Maties
passing there to the Guildhall.” Again, it was announced
that Queen Anne would dine at the Guildhall on Lord
Mayor’s Day, 1702, and the record of October 21st runs that
the Governors “have liberty to erect a seate or stand in
St. Paules Churchyard for the accommodation of the children
of that Hospitall as formerly they have done upon like occa-
sions.” In the case of the speech to George I. (September
10th, 1714) arrangements were made for“severall fair Coppys
to be made to be presented to the Treasurer and such
persons as shall request the same.” George II.’s procession
in November 1727 had to put up with a more than usual
stoppage while three addresses were delivered by three
Grecians to their Majesties, the young prince, and the
princesses, “on their goeing to Guildhall to dine with the
Lord Mayor.” At the time of George III.’s visit (November
9th, 1761) application was made to the Dean of St. Paul’s
“ for liberty to erect a scaffold on the East Side of St. Paul’s
Church Yard close to the Rails and fronting St. Paul’s School.”
The speech this time was written by Peter Whalley, the
Upper Grammar Master, and is recorded in the minutes to
have been spoken “ with the greatest propriety of voice and
action” by Josiah Disturnell, the senior Grecian, who in the
Hospital’s benefice of Wormshill, Kent, survived by fourteen
years the long reign of the monarch whom he addressed,
and thus forms an interesting parallel with the Grecian who
addressed Queen Victoria on a similar occasion. The speech
was a lurid illustration of the vanity of human wishes. It
prayed that the “ dread sovereign ” and his consort might be
“ strangers to the disquietude which often dwells within the
circle of a crown” and have “every comfort of parental
felicity.” Anyhow it was received “ with seeming marks of

206 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

approbation,” and “on their Majesty’s coach moving on all
the children chanted very harmoniously God Save the King.
Amen.”

But “ great occasions ” must unfortunately be held to in-
clude more than the days when citizens “ put on their best
attire ” and “ cull out a holiday.” Situated in the very heart
of the City, the school has “ mourned ” as well as “ piped.”
It has been liable to the stress of political upheaval, to the
storms of religious excitement, and to the scourge of the
“Visitations” of God. In order of time, the last may well
be considered first. How did the “ Blues ” fare under all that
is comprehended in the word “Plague”? Antecedently it
might be supposed that they would come off badly. The
“ Towne Ditch ” ran right through the grounds, and at the
first it was not even deemed necessary to cover it over ; even
when this was done at the expense of one John Calthrop,
a citizen, soon after the foundation of the school, its presence
was probably brought home to the nostrils of the children
with painful frequency. Indeed a bishop-historian, “ dead ere
his prime,” once suggested to me that Ewen’s gift of the site
to the Friars may have been due to his difficulty in disposing
of it in any more profitable manner. Add to this that the
neighbourhood abounded in slaughter-houses, and the only
wonder is that the mortality was not greater. As a matter
of fact, references in the books to the Sickness are very few
in number. Thus, in 1603, the school’s first jubilee, it was
resolved “that their shalbe paid to William Martin Surgeon
to this House as benevolence for his great paines taken with
the children of this House that hath bin visited with plauge
the some of three pounds,” and the sickward-nurse received
“xxxs,” But, of course, the trouble was terribly increased
through the system of day-boys, whether sons of freemen
or paying pupils from all parts of the City. In this particular
case of 1603 no attempt at quarantine was made until July,
when it was found that “the infection of the plauge doth
greatly increase and many children of poore men in most
partes of this citty, dwelling as well in the parishes that are
infected as in the parishes that are not, come to this house

OF GREAT OCCASIONS

207

to schoole and are heer taught, which is very daungerous
to the children, which praised be to God are yet in good
health.” Now any interference with the pay-scholar system
needed to be handled gently, for it was almost all the
masters had to live on. Therefore, when the Governors
decreed that the schools should be “ dissolued untill it shall
please God the infeccon doe cease or otherwise untill
Michaelmas next,” it was deemed wise to send for the
masters and “request them to content themselves there-
with ” and “ wander not abroade.” The Hospital children
they must teach where and as well as they can. Again in
the autumn of 1637 there was an outbreak which affected
the school at least in some degree. In this case “ Mr
Humphry Waynman, Maister of the Lady Ramsies ffree
Writing School,” was not able to “content himself therewith.”
He pleaded that “ keeping schoole ” had been “ forbidden by
Authority in the sicknes tyme ” and he had lost considerably
in income. Nor had the plague spared his family, for he had
“ lately buryed two of ye sickness.” So the Governors, with
a graceful compliment to his “great care and paines,” gave
him £10 as a solatium. Of the great Visitation of 1665
there is no notice in the records till the calamity is over-
passed. In December of that year practically the whole
staff took advantage of the Humphry Waynman precedent,
and have left us some interesting reasons for so doing. They
declared (December 12th, 1665) that “during all this time
of sickness and mortallitie they had been resident and
carefull in the faithfull discharge of their severall offices and
places and had therein been exercised with extriordinary
paines and trouble about the poore children of this Hospitall.
And that God had given such a blessing to their endeavours
that all this time of sickness not more than 32 children of
the number of 260 in the house are dead of all deseases.”
The gifts presented to them amounted to £40 and varied
from downwards, but Mr Helmes, the Grammar Master,
who represented that “ all his pay-schollers were dismist by
order, which was the greatest parte of his livelihood,” re-
ceived a separate present of £10. It cannot be questioned

208 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

that these practical compliments were richly deserved. The
Plague had come to the very doors of the Hospital ; it had
been announced in July that Pincock (Pintock or Pentecost)
Lane, which ran into what is now King Edward Street, was
heavily “ infected.” As it was full of slaughter-houses, it is
not wonderful that it should be. Besides, the grounds of
the Hospital were such a public thoroughfare that isolation
of any effective kind must have been exceedingly difficult,
especially when there were anxious parents in all parishes
of the plague-stricken city wanting to be assured that their
“ Blue ” children were safe.

But the Great Fire showed less consideration, and its
effect was recorded on the minutes by some scribe within
a few days and perhaps a few hours of its cessation. “ It
pleased Almighty God,” says the chronicler, “ by a dreadful
fyre which began att a house in Pudding Lane near to New
Fish Streete to burne and consume the 3rd parte of the Citty
of London with some parte of the Freedom to Temple Barr.
Of all the 97 parishes within the walls but 12 are standing
and St. Sepulchres and St. Bride’s were burnt without the
walls. This terrible fire began at the place before mentioned
on Sunday morning being the 2nd day of September, 1666,
and continued about 4 dayes. By which fire this hospitall
of Christ’s was almost consumed with the two great Churches
adjoining, excepting the 4 cloysters to which ye fire hath
done no hurt and aboute 3 wards towards the sickward and
severall other roomes there, as also the wardrobe of this
hospitall over the south cloyster, the glazed windows of the
church on that side being very little damnified.”

The first question of a kindly reader will be as to the fate
of the children, and happily he can soon be reassured. In
recent times there has been once or twice a question of
the sudden removal of the School to its ultimate home in
the country, and someone was rude enough to call the
project a “policy of scuttle.” But the Fire showed how
successful the “policy of scuttle” may be when the worst
comes to the worst. It attacked the Hospital on its third
day, and the record, headed “Tuesday night 40 Sept. 1666,”

OF GREAT OCCASIONS

209

is worth giving as it stands. “The children in this Hospitall,”
it says, “being above 200, were imediately carried away to
the Naggs Head Inn att Islington belonging to the Hospitall
(which then stood voyd) and after the nights lodging there
they were receiued into the new Corporacon neare Clerkenwell,
and there were dyetted for 4 dayes att 5d per day apeece, and
for so long a time as they continue from Saturday 8 Sept.
1666 Mr Poynts the Governor is to have 6d p. day apeece.”
This “Nagg’s Head” is to be distinguished from the hostel
, of the same sign, so well known (by name) to riders in North
London omnibuses, and had then recently come into the
possession of the Hospital by the gift in 1662 of Mr. John
Browne. His Islington estate was intended to provide
maintenance for “6 schollars” at Christ’s and Emmanuel
Colleges, Cambridge, and forms to this day the bulk of
the Exhibition fund. The great point is that no lives are
recorded to have been lost, or an annual whole holiday would
hardly have been given on September 2nd to commemorate
the event. Besides, the Fire had given only too unmistakable
a warning of its intention to visit the premises. After spending
a week on Mr. Poynts’s “dyett” at Clerkenwell, “viz1 the
1 5° Sept. 1666,” sixty-two of the children were sent to
Ware, and on the 18th fifty-six to Hertford, being boarded
out on the system which had prevailed from the beginning
in the case of children “ sent to nurse.” The rest were
huddled into what remained of the School.

But the historian, being less humane, will rather want
to know what happened to the buildings. The utter dis-
location of school-work was a matter of course ; but what
of the fabric ? Obviously, it suffered severely, as may be
gathered from the amount of debris removed. The “ Dust
and Rubbish,” says the Counting House chronicler, “was
ordered to be cleered, and the lead and iron with other
serviceable materialls to be secured, there being above 40
labourers imployed aboute doeing the same, and 4 or 5
others to oversee them.” The great church of the Grey
Friars lay to the windward of the School during the Fire,
and was thus attacked first. Whether it was partially or

210 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

completely destroyed must be discussed elsewhere, but the
mention of “ the glazed windows being very little damnified ”
does not look like absolute ruin. The part of the Hospital
which suffered most lay on its east front and bordered on the
choir of Christ Church. Here the Counting House and the
Treasurer’s House disappeared, though there was evidently
time to remove the archives, and with these went at least
the upper part of the “ Great Dortor,” which formed the east
side of the Cloisters. Away at the west end of the site,
nearer to St. Sepulchre’s Church and Pye Corner, from the
Hall, which formed the west side of the Cloisters, to the
Infirmary and the Kitchens and the Bakehouse, grievous
havoc was wrought. All that could be done was to patch up
what was left, and the first thought was for the Counting
House, as the centre of all organisation. In October it was
ordered that “ the rough (roof) of the south easte parte of
the wardrobe . . . which was almost consumed by the late
ffire should be forthwith made upp and fitted for a compting
house, And that other Arch on the back thereof, which
is ouer the porch leading to Christ’s Church, on which some
parte of the Matrons house stood should be likewise made
upp for to secure the evidences and writings belonging to .
this hospitall.” But elsewhere the ruins were actually
dangerous to life ; indeed it is clear that the cloisters were
not at all safe before. Two years previously (May 24th,
1664), an order had been given that “the children should
noe longer wash dishes in their wards for that the Arches
of the Cloysters are much damnified.” It was now arranged
that “ the Cloysters should be made upp with boardes as
lately they were ... to keep the children and others of the
House from goeing under those cloysters, which are thought
to be very dangerous since the late fire, haueing received
very much raine.” In fact, so much had to be done that
it was only in November 1667, after an exile of fourteen
months, that the children were restored to their several wards,

“ now made fitt and convenient for them.”

But besides destruction of buildings the Fire was a trial in
other ways. Christ Church needed some repairs before it

OF GREAT OCCASIONS 21 1

was suited for Divine Service, and the few score of children
who remained among the ruins could not be left in heathen-
ism ; so it fell to “ Mr Keyes, usher of the Gramer Schoole,”
to “read prayers to the children on Sabboth Day and other
feast dayes till such time as the Court take further order
therein.” Then, with less than seventy pupils on the
premises, the masters were having too easy a time, and it
was resolved to “ take off such officers as are useless, to abate
the charge which this house is at.” Away went Mr. James,
the Writing Master, whose alcoholic “disguise” has already
been mentioned, and the Song-School Master followed him.
The Doctor and the Porter found their salaries halved, and
several others were “ abated ” in various proportions, to the
sparing of the Hospital’s pocket by £160 8.r. 8d. per annum.
The Treasurer, William Gibbon, was also in a bad way, and
wanted to resign. It “ had pleased Almighty God very
much to impaire his estate by the late Fire,” but what he
seems to have felt still more was the “ lameness in one of his
Leggs .” He was, it would seem, of a nervous temperament,
for, the moment they told him to go on in his office and
“ cheerfully to execute the same,” he took courage and did as
he was told, — at least for some years. The Treasurer’s
complaint that his estate was impaired must have come home
with tenfold force to the Governing Body. A large amount
of their income was in City rents, and they had houses both
in Pudding Lane and at Pie Corner. The Chief Clerk’s
letter to the tenants on this subject will give a fair idea of
the task that lay before all City house-owners, whose property
had lain in the pathway of the Visitation.

“ October 2, 1666.

“ I am commanded by the Governors of Christ’s Hospitall
to send you the precept [from Guildhall] here inclosed ; pray
forthwith repaire to the ground whereon your house or
houses stood, take with you workmen and let them take the
dimencons of every particular Building and ground you held
of the said Christ Hospitall, which when you have done and
subscribed the same, bring it to the Beadle’s booth in the
ward where your house or houses stood, and a copy thereof

2i2 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

to me at Mr Hyde’s house, Glazier, against the Pump in
Little Brittaine, where you shall be sure to hear of him

Morning or Evening who is Yrs TT7 „

\Vm Parrey.

Happily the Hospital had large estates in the country
then, as, unhappily, it has to-day, and somehow the great
organisation managed to pull along. Even the stream of
University “Scholars” trickled on, for George Cox went to
Peterhouse in the January after the Fire, prepared for that
purpose by Shadrach Helmes, the Grammar Master, who had
lost both his residence and his “ pay-schollers ” and had had
grievous cause to remember these “ two great visitacons.”

But it is time to consider the effect on the life of this
Royal Foundation of the various national upheavals which
have altered the face of the political ground for the country
at large. Of course, certain allowance must be made if the
signs of these disturbances are few and far between in the
records of an institution so shut in as Christ’s Hospital, and
withal so identified with the Corporation of the City of
London. At most of its Courts and Committees the
majority present were Aldermen, Deputies, or Common
Councilmen ; all but a very few were resident within the
walls of the City. Therefore, in times of political tension,
the school felt what the City felt ; for the predilections of
masters were scarcely taken into account, and the “poore
children ” would not be considered to have any predilections
at all. Nevertheless, it is strange to find crucial events
like the execution of Charles passing without so much as
a reference in the voluminous records of Courts and Com-
mittees. There was a meeting of these worthy citizens five
days before the trial of the King began at Westminster
Hall, there was another within three weeks after “that
memorable scene ” outside Whitehall ; but the school’s
government must be carried on, whether Kings keep their
heads or lose them, and instead of passing a resolution of
confidence in the substituted Government at the first meeting,
after so dire an event, they had an amicable conversation
with “ the Earle of Lincolns Steward ” about the felling of

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY THE I!EV. D. F. HEYWOOD

OF GREAT OCCASIONS 213

“some old Elme Trees out of the garden in Tuthill Streete
in Westminster, which doth belong to this house.” What-
ever their actual feelings were, they did not allow sentiment
to impede business, and, with the rest of the citizens, they
fell in with the new order of things. In December 1649
“ Mr Wickins the Steward is appointed to goe to such
Gouverners of this house as weare not at this Court to take
their Subscriptions to ye Engagement appointed by ye
Parliament and ordered bye Lord Maior and Court of Aider-
men to bee subscribed unto.” It was evidently unnecessary
to persuade them to sign it.

But for some years previously the distress of the nation
had been unconsciously mirrored in the minutes of the Court-
meetings. For example, in June 1646, the executor of some
benefactor, who would feel himself a persona grata, petitioned
the Governors to “admitte of a poore man’s child into this
hospitall whose father was slayne in ye wares.” There was
a difficulty here, for the father was not a freeman of the City,
but they granted the request on the understanding that it
should not be made a precedent. The stress of the times,
however, was brought home to the Hospital in a still more
practical way, for the tenants fell into arrears with their rent,
and craved all manner of indulgence. One urged “ye great
hindrances and losses wch he hath sustayned ” and “ the many
taxes which hath been laid uppon him.” A certain Mrs.
Sharfield of Wiltshire “ hath received for yc space of four
years (to 1646) not above tenn pounds pr. ann. out of ye said
lands, ye rest haveing beene kept and held from her by ye
King’s forces,” and from her the Governors accepted ,£100,
where she owed £^169. In October 1647 came the kins-
woman of a Mr. Howlet, who had given the Hospital some
land at East Bedfont, and begged the Court to “take into
consideracon the miserable and hard condicon that she is
now in in regard of the soldiers being there who from tyme
to tyme have layne quartering and billeting at her house, and
have taken all her butter cheese beere and all other pro-
uisions as well horse meate as Man’s meate to her great
detriment and almost her utter undoing.” And the diffi-

214 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

culties extended from the Governors’ real property to their
invested funds. Lady Cleere had left them ^ioo in 1644 to
provide for a schoolmistress to teach the girls to “read and
work,” and this had been “ put forth into ye Exize Office
at 8;£ per hundred”; but in 1647 the question naturally
arose “ wheather they would continew it there any longer or
remove it into some other hands for more saftie.” Till that
“saftie” should return, a private person borrowed it at six
per cent., and half a century later, when Dutch William was
established on the throne, this hundred pounds, together with
a larger sum, the gift, in 1599, of Peter Blundell, of Tiverton
fame, went towards the purchase of houses in Pancras Lane,
where it is “ as safe as houses ” to this day.

Of the religious changes in our history, whether due to
politics or independent of them, the records of the “ Religious
Foundation” show little or no trace. It goes without saying,
that the sympathies of the School, as the offspring of the
Reformation, remained more or less Protestant. The only
question is how far it developed from Protestant into Puritan,
how far it swerved from the Church towards the “ Sectaries.”
Fundamentally, it would appear that there was no such
change; for the first thing to suffer in such a case would
be the hitherto and, till 1891, universal teaching of the
Church Catechism. Yet, in 1638, the very year of the
Solemn League and Covenant, the Governors took “ into
consideration Mr. Vicars his greate care and paines” as
Catechizer and added ffiue pounds ” to his “ sellery,” and
in 1643, when Puritanism had made great advances, the
whole system of Church doctrine was settled on a better
basis in connexion with the special benefaction for that
purpose of “ Mrs Margaret Wale, Widdowe.” There is, of
course, no guarantee that the Catechizer under the Common-
wealth did not adapt his interpretation to the views of the
day, and in the case of Vicars the probability is that he did
so, but he received his stipend for expounding the tenets of
the Church of England “three tymes euery weeke an hower at
a tyme by an hower-glasse.” In other and less important
ways, the notions of the Puritans found their way into the

OF GREAT OCCASIONS 215

Hospital. For instance, there was a “ stalwart in the
Counting House, who vented his “independence” on the
minutes, wherever he was dealing with a Saint. In the
lists of children admitted he had to give the parishes from
which they came, and up to 1639 he was content, perhaps
under protest, to call a Saint a Saint ; but in 1647 I16 begins
to have his own way, and having once written “ St. Nicholas
Accon,” and being obliged to mention the parish a second
time, he writes “Nicholas Accon”; for the rest the parishes
must be satisfied in 1647 and 1648 with appearing as
“Martins in the Fields,” “ Olaues Hartstreete,” “Dunstons
West,” “Mary Ouers in Southwarke,” and “John Zacharies,”
while poor “ St. Leonard Foster ” is stripped to the bareness
of “ fibsters.”

But the Civil War made havoc of two important classes,
the scholars for the Universities and the presentees to
benefices. In regard to the first, the disturbed state of the
two Universities made progress difficult, but whatever was
the reason, only two exhibitioners, one for Cambridge and
one for Oxford, left the Hospital between 1641 and 1657.
There was no such scarceness for fifty years before, and
no such ever since. As to the clergy one instance must
suffice. In 1649 Mr. Aims, or Amyes, vicar of Horley, was
summoned to the Court “ to answere a complaint made
against him for absenting himselfe from his cure for six
weekes together, in all wch tyme he hath not preached to
his parishioners there, but left them destitute.” His reply
would be anxiously awaited by the Governors who at this
time were sworn foes to clerical pluralism, and it may be
considered adequate. “It was,” he said, “in regard of some
troubles that Mr. Jourdaine and 3 or 4 more of ye Parish
which hee saith are Annabaptists had brought upon him
by accusing him to y° Parliament for being a Malignant.
Whereupon he was summoned upp to London to see what
they would charge him withall and feed Counsell to pleade for
him, and afterwards they used means to imprission him, and
so deprived him of his libertie, and is at this present as hee
alleadgeth by their means sequestered from his living, soe

2 1 6 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

that hee could not performe his dutie and office as otherwise
hee would have done.” The poor wretch intimated that
he would get quit of the sequestration “ and make his peace
if hee may,” or else resign. It would appear that he managed
to agree with his enemies in the gate, and the state of his
purse must have told him that it was high time, since for
a year past he had had “ but 4^ for his labour and paines
bestowed amongst them, whereof hee saith hee hath paid
aboute £3. 10. to ye P’liament.”

CHAPTER XIII.

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES

“ The time would fail me if I were to attempt to enumerate all those circum-
stances, some pleasant, some attended with some pain, which, seen through the
mist of distance, come sweetly softened to the memory.” — Charles Lamb.

THE SPITAL SERMONS

IT was inevitable that Christ’s Hospital should not only
have its part in the celebration of public events and the
endurance of public calamities, but also that it should create
its own environment of quaint custom and regular ob-
servance. Of these the oldest and the most permanent is
the Easter ceremony, including the Spital Sermons, whose
history is longer than that of the School. But the changes
in the custom and the constant association of the “ Blues ”
with it from 1553 onwards have almost established the right
of the Hospital to claim the function as its own, though it
is still technically arranged by the Corporation of the City.
The Town Clerk applies to the vicar for the use of Christ
Church and the vicar only sees who is to occupy the pulpit
through the kindness of his newspaper. But it may be
well here to give further details. “Touching the antiquitie
of this custome,” says Stow, it is not possible to be more
definite than to date it to “ time out of minde.” He gives a
reference to a proclamation by Richard II. which was “read
and pronounced at Paules Cross and Saint Marie Spittle
in the sermons before all the people.’’ Philip Malpas,
Sheriff, in 1439 “gave twenty shillings by the yeare to the
three preachers at the Spittle.” Stephen Forster, Mayor,
in 1454 “gave fortie pounds to the Preachers at Paules Crosse

217

2 1 8 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

and the Spittle,” more probably as an endowment than in
fees for a single year. It is therefore possible to assume that
the custom is two centuries older than Christ’s Hospital.
But first as to the places of observance. Paul’s Cross and
its history and position are known to everyone, but in the
sixteenth century it shared the honours with a similar cross
at St. Mary Spital (i.e. Hospital) which stood in a spacious
square. “It was an hospital of greate reliefe,” says Stow, and
in his time “ the large Church yeard ” remained “ as of olde
time.” Within hearing distance of the pulpit stood “one
faire builded house of two stories in height for the Maior
and other honourable persons with the Aldermen and
Sheriffes to sit in ” and “ in the loft over them stood the
Bishop of London and other prelates.” The civic ladies
“ stande at a fayre window or sit at their pleasure.” As
for the “ Blues,” who, again according to Stow, first wore
their “blew” at the Spital in 1553, it is probable that here as
elsewhere they had at first to be content to stand and defy
the elements. Nor were they the only sufferers in this
respect, for several years later (Guildhall Records, Letter
Book v. 139b) at a Court in 1567 it was ordered “that the
Chamberlyn at the Cytyes charge shall cause the guttur
whereby the rayne water falleth vppon the officers of the
Cytie and others attendinge vppon my lord maior and my
masters the aldermen in the sermon tyme at Paules Crosse
to be turned and diverted from the place where yt now
falleth.” For these Paul’s Cross audiences, however, there
was plenty of refuge near at hand, and one instance is on
record where, in 1561, the rain was so heavy that it was
impossible to “pryche at Powlles Crosse” and the service
was held at the Grey Friars, otherwise Christ Church. But
at the Spital shelter was not so plentiful; so in 1565 the
Governors went to the expense of a “ tilt,” or tent, to cover
the children, and in 1593, Alderman William Elkine, whose
attendance at the sermons had perhaps shown him the patent
deficiencies of the “ tilt,” left Christ’s Hospital a sum sufficient
“ for the building of a house at St. Mary’s Hospital, for the
Governors and children to sit in at Easter times. Aftei

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 219

over twenty years’ service the “tilt” might well have expected
to gain a well-earned retirement. But the Governors had
a frugal mind, and they cut it up, or what was left of it,
to make coverings for the straw on which the children slept.
Whatever may have been the case when they had a house to
assemble in, the Governors could not always rely on finding
their previous place unoccupied when they presented them-
selves to hear the sermons. For it is stated in the Court
minutes of 1578 : —

‘Thomas Stone and other Beadles havinge missbehaued
their selfe on Wednisdaie in the easter weke last past by
oppressinge the scaffolde with so manie people that neyther
the gounors nor yet the children cold haue anie place in
the sermon tyme, and farther by reason of theire excessive
takinge of mony hathe raised soche displeasure of the
citizens that there is greate anoyance thereby towards the
gounors of this Hospitall, whereuppon the Court hathe ordered
that Thomas Stone shall delr up his stafife and be dismyssed
of his place Duringe the Gounors pleasure.’

At some date, which I have failed to discover — save that
it was subsequent to 1680 — the preaching at the Spital
ceased, and it is doubtful if there were any sermons at Paul’s
Cross after 1643. Indeed, in 1641, when Richard Vines, of
the Westminster Assembly, was the preacher, the service was
held in Christ Church, as stated on the printed copy of his
sermon entitled “The Impostures of Seducing Teachers.”
The Restoration gave back the custom to the City, but the
venue was changed to St. Bride’s, Fleet Street, till in 1797
Christ Church, Newgate Street, became its permanent home.

So much for the place. Of what did the observance
consist? Apparently of preaching only, but of preaching
in plenty. Returning to Stow, we find that the sermons
began on Good Friday at Paul’s Cross with one “treating
of Christ’s passion ” ; and “ upon the three next Easter holy
dayes, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, three preaching
in the forenoone at the Spittle” had “to persuade the
Article of Christ’s resurrection ” ; the following Sunday,
Low Sunday, “ one other learned man ” (who presumably

220 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

had endured the discourses of his predecessors with a sense
of delight that he was not to be semper auditor tantum )
made “ rehearsall of those foure former sermons, either com-
mending or reprouing them as to him by judgment of the
learned Divines was thought convenient.” That done, he
preached a discourse of his own to show the others how
they ought to have managed their task. The appointment
of these Easter preachers was long a bone of contention
between the Bishop of London and the City. It seems
clear that the Corporation nominated those at the Spital
and the Bishop those at Paul’s Cross. The result was not
always seemly, especially if the Bishop had a grudge against
the City; indeed there is a letter from the Guildhall to John
Aylmer, Bishop of London, dated September 6th, 1581,
which, while not referring to an Easter sermon, displays the
inconveniences of the system. His lordship’s chaplain had
recently preached at Paul’s Cross, and had taken the oppor-
tunity to “ publicly defame to their faces ” the citizens who
would have to provide him with the fee for his sermon. He
told them that, if such as they appointed the “ Paulies ”
preachers, “ they would appoint such as would defend usury,
the family of love, and puritanism.” Naturally the citizens
“ desired his lordship to take order that he should make
reparation for their good fame.” The quarrel became more
serious when the Bishop (this time John King, the sixth
occupant of the see of London since Aylmer’s death in
1 595, or five in fifteen years!) claimed the nomination of
all the Easter divines. Just before Easter 1616 (March 8)
the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen sent him a long
letter reminding him of their undoubted right. They had
always appointed the Spital preachers, and had acquainted
him with their names, not of necessity but of courtesy ;
but the Bishop had forbidden one of their nominees to
preach, and “ said he would forbid the rest.” The Bishop,
they continued, had better understand that such action
“ will be displeasing to the citizens and hinder their wonted
charity.” In other words the Bishop will not get the use
of the Mansion House for a Bishop of London’s Fund

1'HQTO GRAPH liY THE REV. L>. F. HEVWOOD

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 221

meeting. However, the honours remained with the City
and the Aldermen ; they continued to nominate the Spital
preachers, as is shown by their letter of February 7th, 1618,
to Dr. John Prideaux, who by the way declined their invi-
tation “because his daily employment in the University
(Oxford) gave him no time to fit himself for such a
business.” The privilege which the City maintained in the
face of the 'Bishop was increased by the Parliament. In
September 1642 the Lords and Commons, hearing that the
City was entrusted with “ satisfaction & provision of and
for all ministers that preach at Pawles Church, Pawles
Crosse, the Spittle, and other places,” and “ that at later
times many unsound, unfaithful and unprofitable ministers”
have been preaching sermons which “ tended more to Popery
and sedition than edification and wholesome instruction,”
gave orders that “ during these times of distraction ” the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen should nominate all the
preachers. It is in virtue of this trust that Sunday morn-
ing preachers at St. Paul’s Cathedral sjtill receive their fee
from funds in the hands of the Corporation.

The whole ceremony bears witness to the healthy appetite
for sermons shown by the Londoners of old time. They
liked them often and they liked them long. Take the case*
of three brothers named Wincope, “ called from places remote
one from another,” who in Easter Week 1632 preached on
the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, “agreeing so nicely
on their subject, that the second continued what the first
began, and the third brought it to a conclusion.” Even the
Restoration, which shortened the five sermons to three, did
not have much effect on their individual length. Mr. Pepys,
whose church-going diligence is not hid under a bushel,
visited the Spital festival more than once.

‘April 2. 1662. Mr Moore came to me and he and I
walked to the Spittle an houre or two before my Lord
Mayor and the blewe-coat boys come, which at last they
did, and. a fine sight of charity it is indeed. We got places
and staid to hear a sermon, but, it being a Presbyterian

* Chiswell, New View, a.d. 1708, p. 77.

222 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

one, was so long that after above an houre of it we went
away.’

‘April 13. 1669. I by hackney coach to the Spittle and
heard a piece of a dull sermon to My Lord Mayor and
Aldermen, and thence saw them all take horse and ride
away, which I have not seen together many a day ; their
wives also went in their coaches ; and indeed the sight was
mighty pleasing.’

Mr. Pepys’ impression of length and dulness (though he
is perhaps not the best of authorities on the latter) is sub-
stantiated by facts. Isaac Barrow was Spital Preacher in
1671, and the City requested him to print the sermon “with
what further he had prepared to deliver at that time.” Who
got exhausted first, audience or orator, is not on record ; but
in the large print octavo, in which Barrow published it, the
discourse occupies 230 pages. Its text was “the Duty and
Reward of Bounty to the Poor,” and Tillotson’s comment
may be allowed to pass that “ it seems to have exhausted the
whole argument and to have left no consideration belonging
to it untouch’d.” Nor is it wonderful that Barrow after
preaching a second Spital sermon in 1677 “never preached
but once more.” Again, by the kindness of a friend I possess
a copy of Dr Samuel Parr’s famous effort on April 15th,
1800, soon after the Easter services were removed to Christ
Church. It is a small printed quarto, there are twenty-four
pages of sermon (of which he confesses to having omitted
two in the pulpit) and 124 pages of elaborate notes. It is
recorded that the Lord Mayor of the day, in complimenting
the untiring preacher, ventured a remark to the effect that
there were four things during the sermon which he had been
very sorry to hear. “ Dear, dear, my lord,” said the Doctor,
“what were they?” “Sir,” came his lordship’s reply, “I
mean the quarters struck by the church clock.” But the
laugh was not always with the Chief Magistrate. Bishop
Warburton, who accepted an invitation to the usual Easter
Banquet after the service, was expressly thanked by the
Lord Mayor on behalf of the Common Council, “for that
this was the first time he ever heard them prayed for.” The

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 223

Bishop blandly answered: “Not at all: I considered them
as a body who much needed the prayers of the Church.”

The three sermons that used to be delivered at St. Bride’s
were reduced to two when the scene was changed to Christ
Church, and now for twenty years there has been but one
and that on Easter Tuesday. The Bishop who preaches is
nominated according to the rota of consecration by the
Archbishop of Canterbury. The Easter holidays no longer
begin with the last words of the benediction, as they did in
my time, with terrible effects on our attention, and the
patience of the young audience is rarely tried by more than
thirty minutes — with a leaning to mercy. But the trying
ordeals of old time are part of the history of Christ’s
Hospital. Several hundred children had to listen while
Isaac Barrow droned on for three hours and a half. Let
us hope they were prepared for it by the knowledge that
at Westminster Abbey the organ had once been started
before his sermon was anything like finished, to remind him
of the flight of time and the frailty of human powers of
attention.

But, in regard to the part played by the School at this
ancient function, one or two customs deserve mention. It was
natural that a prudent body like the Governors should turn
what Pepys called this “ fine sight of charity ” to a practical
use, and certainly about the close of the seventeenth century
it was their habit to make what they could out of it. In
1676 the Treasurer and two Governors “are desired to waite
upon the Ministers that preach at the Spittle and to desire
them to press Charity.” At the same time, on the principle
of beginning their charity at home, two other Governors were
desired to go with the Treasurer “to the Spittle about a
Seate for the Governors to sitt in at Easter ” ; perhaps their
tired legs still recalled the three hours and a half of Isaac
Barrow s sermon. But, lest Charity should seem too in-
definite a plea, it was arranged in 1680 that the Treasurer
and his selected colleagues should “ attend the Divines that
are to preach att Spittle next Easter and presse them to move
the Auditors to remember the poore children of this Hospitall

224 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

in their sermonds.” This is not to imply that there was any
collection at the close of the service but that the Treasurer
was willing to receive the smallest contributions at the Count-
ing House. And the gift of Edward Arris in 1670 will
serve to show that the benefactions were not always as wise
as they were generous. At this very period when the
preachers were “ pressing Charity ” he left £100, the interest
to “bee laid out for ever in gloves for the Children to be
worne euery Easter when they waite upon the Lord Maior
to St Maries Spittle.” A pair of gloves is a useful present, as
every “Blue” feels on Easter Tuesdays, but the benefaction
can scarcely have come up to the Treasurer’s requirements.
Arris added a condition “that every child may have upon
his gloves (Court Book, July 5th, 1670) a paper with these
words printed in legible characters (p)ee tS rlfcn).” How the
paper was kept on the gloves is not stated, and the difficulty
of the operation soon caused it to be pinned on the left
breast, as every Blue now in middle life will well remember.
The pious surgeon desired his young friends to keep the fact
of the Resurrection in mind on their annual outing, and it
may have had this effect in many cases ; but in Leigh Hunt’s
day, the legend suffered from a rude admixture of Anti-
Semitism, which he illustrates with the couplet —

“ He is risen, He is risen,

All the Jews must go to prison.”

In my day the Gothic “s” and the Volunteer movement
corrupted it by a greater effort of youthful folly into ‘ He
is a Rifleman.” At this rate one need not regret that after
two hundred years of existence the wearing of the legend
came to an end about 1877.

Another custom, more acceptable to the boys personally
as a relief to their pockets, if a trial to their pride, takes
them on Easter Tuesday to the Mansion House an hour or
two before the time fixed for the sermon. When this custom
began, I have been unable to discover. The Easter cere-
monies have for long been characterised by a procession
eastward. Thus there is an order of March 24th, 1681, to

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 225

the effect that the Masters are to wait upon the Lord Mayor
with the children, that “ the Mathematical! children ” are “ to
carry a Ruler & Compasse, the Writing children to have
a red pen in their eare, and the Reading Scholars to have a
Bible or Testament in their hands”; and in Trollope’s time
something of the same sort still prevailed. In his day, the
boys, as they passed before the Lord Mayor, received six-
pence each, the monitors a shilling, and the Grecians half
a guinea. Lord Mayor William Thompson in 1828 showed
his well-known favour to the “ Blues ” by doubling the
gift in each case, and his successors have not risked their
popularity in the Hospital by a return to the original amount.
It was the custom at one time to give the boys wine with
their buns, without any alternative of a less fiery nature ;
and this may have had something to do with a complaint
made by the Court of Aldermen in 1693 “°f great rudeness
and disorders lately committed by the boys of Christ’s and
Bridewell Hospitals at Church time in Easter last.” Cer-
tainly there is little wine drunk by them on the Easter
Tuesdays of modern times, and there is no more attentive
congregation in London than the present “Blues” as they
listen to the Spital Bishop.

Mention must be made, before leaving the Spital cere-
monies, of the custom of singing a specially composed
Easter Psalm or Anthem, the libretto by a master or scholar,
and the score by the Song- School Master. It must be
frankly admitted that the prudent Governors were not
without ulterior motives in this display of poetic and musical
generosity. It was their habit to print the words and the
music, and to use the reverse side, as they used the sermons,
for “ pressing charity.” The earliest reference to the custom
which my search has brought to light is in the year 1625, but
its real nature can best be gathered from a collection of these
Psalms, ranging, though not continuously, from 1681 to 1842,
and preserved in the Museum. The first necessity was to
procure the words, written generally in six verses, two for
each of the (then) three services. These were ordered from
various sources. In 1676 the laureate was “the usher of the
Q

226 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Grammar Schoole,” and, when the order was repeated in 1678,
the Usher was further told “to attend William Moses Esq.
a member of this house with the Psalme for his approbation
thereof or alteration of the same if hee see cause.” But in
1684 the Court saw good to command a joint effort; the
Grammar Master (Mountfort) and the Mathematical Master
(Pagett) were bidden “to joyne together in composing two
Psalmes that may constantly in turne be used by the
children on Easter Monday Tuesday and Wednesday
yearly.” Alas ! the partnership produced no permanent
result, as the following lines which they perpetrated will
readily imply : —

“ In price of what they wear and eat though many us excel,

Yet with plain coats and wholesome meat we thrive and look as
well ;

The Bird that finest feathers wears no warmer is for that,

And though some feed on wheaten ears, yet others are as fat.”

So thereafter they tried Mountfort by himself ; but he
evidently was little anxious for the bays ; for, having been
told to “prepare the Psalme” for 1689, he seems to have
passed on the task to his famous pupil, Joshua Barnes, whose
initials are printed at the bottom of the page. If anything,
the result is worse : —

“ Low on the Dunghill and the Dust, Naked and Poor we lay,

Our Clothing Rags, our Food a Crust, our Beauty Filth and Clay ;
May length of Days, and Wealth, and Peace, and Virtue’s brighter
Crown,

King William and Queen Mary Grace, as they Grace England’s
Throne ! ”

But the Governors were clearly pleased with this experi-
ment of making laureates of their exhibitioners, for in 1692
the Treasurer wrote to Samuel Linwood and Richard
Fletcher at Trinity College, Cambridge, “either by them-
selves or others to compose a psalme fit for the children to
sing before the Lord Major at Easter.” Hitherto there is no
mention of any fee; but in 1697 Samuel Cobb, a precocious
youth, who when at school “composed a booke of Poems
and dedicated it to the Treasurer and Governors,” began
his long series of Easter ditties by submitting one to the

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 227

Treasurer while still an undergraduate, which was at once
“given to Mr Browne the Musick Master for his perusall
in order to compose the Musick.” Copies of this psalm still
exist, and a few lines will enable the reader to console him-
self for the loss of most of its successors : —

“ Gaze, ransom’d mortal, and admire a love stupendously divine !

These unworn paths Imperial Edward trod, the Charles immensely
mild —

Edward a hoary youth in virtue old, and Charles of an sethereal
make

Kept dying charity awake, consum’d with grief and vexed with
pining cold.”

On leaving Cambridge Cobb became Usher of the
Grammar School, and decided always to be ready with
a “Psalme.” In 1704 he began to consider the possibility
of adding in this way to his scanty income ; for, having
produced the usual screed, he “ acquainted the Comee he hath
for seven yeares last past made the Easter Psalme, which
is to him an extra imployment.” The Committee, seeing his
drift, voted him “ two guinneys for which he was thankfull,”
and he was careful to make this a precedent for future use ;
so much so that, having continuously drawn his “ two
guinneys” till 1709, he was met by a resolution, of which
he could not mistake the import, “ that for the future noe
more Easter Psalmes shall be made without a particular
order first had of this Comee ” ; so “ S. C.’s ” monopoly came
to an end.

It has already been said that these Psalms, in their printed
form, were a “valuable advertising medium.” Without going
so far as to urge that the Hospital was “entirely supported
by voluntary contributions,” the appeals printed on the paper
pleaded that “ the certain revenue of the said Hospital is
little more than the moiety of the necessary charges thereof.”
In fact the Psalm-sheet was a perpetual reminder to the
citizens to “remember the poor.” As one of its own poets
(1682) also had said : —

“ 'Tis God finds all the gums and spice, and men find but the smoke.”
Let them at any rate see that they do find it.

228 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

BURIALS

More frankly commercial even than this “ pressing of
charity” at the Spital Sermons was the custom, long
prevalent but happily long defunct, of sending the children
to funerals — for a consideration. Historically, the Governors
had some excuse for regarding the bodies of the dead as
a lawful source of profit; for the “Grey Friars” was the
favourite burying-place of the English aristocracy, who were
willing to pay heavily for the privilege of taking their last
sleep in the Franciscan habit, very much as the wealthy
Florentine affected an interment at San Miniato. From all
this the Friars derived no small advantage. Their successors,
the Governors of Christ’s Hospital, made money in a different
way. At the present time it is the poorer classes, but then
it was the rich citizens, who craved a fine funeral, and one
way to secure it was to have an ample procession of the
“poore Children” of Christ’s Hospital. As early as 1577
a person “was graunted to have a competent number of the
children to the buriall of Mr Shoulor and thereuppon hath
promised xx8,” and by the time that Robert Dow made his
provision for the Music School the custom had become
prevalent; for he stipulated in 1609 that, “ upon the children
attending burials, one half of the singing scholars shall be
left behind, at the discretion of the master, that the school
be not empty, unless it should be a special or double funeral.”

In the days when private houses were small the first
requisite was to find a place for the mourners to assemble in,
and the School Hall, like those of the City Companies,
answered the purpose admirably. It was let free of charge
except “ satisfaction to such as prepare and make cleane the
Hall.” For the rest, it is impossible to discover any exact
system in the matter. Thus Mr. John Babington, the
Treasurer of the Hospital, was buried from Salters’ Hall
in 1652 (“to have all ye children while my predecessor
at Christ Church, Mr. Edmund Shering, who had no organic
connexion with the Hospital and quarrelled with it on every
possible occasion, was “ buryed from the Court Room ” (“ to

THE COUNTING HOUSE YARD

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 229

have 48 children ”). What has been already said will give
some idea of the system, whose general plan may be gathered
from the following letter. It seems to have been the recog-
nised form of invitation : —

‘SIR, — Your Worship as a Governor of Christ's Hospital is
desired to meet at the great Hall of the said Hospital, on
Tuesday , the 13th of September instant, by two of the Clock
in the afternoon precisely, in your gown and with a green
Staff, from thence to accompany the Corps of THOMAS
STRETCHLEY , gentleman, to the Tabernacle in Christ
Church , to hear a Sermon : Pray, Sir, be pleased to appear
(his executors having declared that by his will he is a Bounti-
ful Benefactor to the Children of your Hospital ).

‘Your humble Servant,

‘William Parrey.

‘September 10, 1681.’

This means to say that the Hospital, in consideration of
what it is to gain from the will of the “ corps,” is bound to
see that it receives a largely attended funeral. Carry the
system a little further, and anyone who wants such a funeral
may secure these unfortunate young mutes by paying or
guaranteeing such and such a sum of money. In proof of
this the “Burials Book” remains among the archives. It
cannot have been the only one, for it does not begin till
1622, and when it opens the custom is clearly in full swing.
The body of the page is filled with the name of the person
to be buried and the arrangements for the service, and the
margin contains the figures of his or her past or prospective
gifts to the Hospital, there being a rough proportion between
those figures and the number of children provided as
mourners. The “special or double funerals” may be repre-
sented by that of Mr. Stretchley, whose benefactions
amounted to .£5,200. “ The Governra,” says the Burials

Book, “ are all invited to attend his ffunerall with 200 child-
ren.” But it confesses in a footnote that “ of all the Governrs,
no. 300 invited, appeared but 90, who had rings of 8£ price
a peice,” and, as these would be paid for out of the estate,
it was at once a blessing for the legatees and a credit to the

23o ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

absent Governors that no more “appeared.” At the other
end of the scale is the entry, dated 1652, to the effect that
“the Lady Ann daughter to my Lord Sussex is to be buryed
on Fryday instant by 5 of the clock in ye afternoone from
convent garden. 40 guirles to attend.” Her ladyship esti-
mated their services to her “ corps ” at a shilling a head, and
so gave the Hospital two pounds sterling. A deceased
lady, for whom insult is piled on injury by her being in-
scribed as “ Mad Agnieta Vandermarsh, an antient maide,”
has the services of one hundred children at the Dutch
Church. The funerals, which they thus graced with their
presence, were by no means confined to the City and neigh-
bourhood. A certain Dame Martha, with an illegible sur-
name, who was going to be interred at Bletchingley, had
“ 300 boys and 60 girles to attend the funerall to the end
of the stones in Blackman Street, Bow.” When the body
of Mr. Serjeant Moses, the great patron of Cambridge
Exhibitioners, was laid to rest in 1688 at Pembroke Hall,
all the children accompanied the procession to “ White
Chapell Bars.” But there are also instances in which these
hungry young hirelings had to go as far as Hampstead and
Greenwich, and their comfort was not often considered either
in the will or by the beneficiaries. True, Mr. John Babing-
ton, already mentioned, left ^100 “to buy Roast-meat of
£2 yearly for the children above their ordinary dyett,” and
there were cases in which it was arranged for the boys to
have “ I2d apeece” or a pair of gloves, or a knife ; but there
was a successful raid on the gloves by the nurses of the
wards, and as late as 1686 the Committee agreed, in regard
to any money given to the children, to maintain “ the
custome for the nurses to have halfe (if divideable).” It
may be fairly assumed that the nurses would make sure of
the divideableness of anything under the circumstances.

The question remains whether there was any advantage
to the children to atone for long and dreary tramps as part
of long and dreary processions to do honour to people whose
very names were often unknown to them. This can only
be answered by an examination of the Burials Book, which

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 231

will show that the children were employed at one thousand
funerals between 1622 and 1648, and at about five hundred
and fifty between 1649 and 1754, when the practice came
to an unlamented end. Thus, business in this line was
most brisk in the years when Puritanism was gathering its
strength, which is scarcely eloquent of the simplicity of that
movement. A rough calculation of the benefactions which
led to or were likely to flow from the presence of the “ Blue ”
children at these fifteen hundred and fifty ceremonies shows
the profit to the Hospital to have been about £75,000, while
of the sums contributed by corpses before 1622 no account
remains. It was a happy day when it became impossible for
the Clerk, in estimating the probable receipts for the current
year, to suggest, as Reeve did in 1690, that the deficit might
be made up “by Legacyes, fines upon leases, Benevolences,
Buryalls and other Casualties''

“ HALLY-BLAGS.”

Before leaving the various religious customs of the Hospital
a word may be said as to one or two others. Any “ Blue ”
of twenty years back and upwards will suggest “ Hally-
blags” as worth a word or two. It is to be feared that
the word is a scholastic abbreviation of “ All Hallows
Blackguards,” but their career was not as bad as their name
implies. Their origin is to be found in the will of Peter
Symondes, citizen and Mercer of London, dated the 4th of
April, 1586. He left a sum of money in order that on each
Good Friday the children of Christ’s Hospital should attend
“ the church of All Saints in Lumber Street,” or sixty of
them at least. They were to receive at the close of the
service a penny apiece and a bag of raisins, the latter to
cost by the testator’s direction three shillings and fourpence.
Trollope is responsible for a statement that they were chosen
in his time “ for good behaviour.” In later times it was
the more cautious custom to avoid such invidious distinc-
tions and to choose the smallest boys in the school, and
there were few of them who would not have avoided the

232 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

title of “ Hally-blag ” in a trice if other than “ good behaviour ”
would have set them free. Here at least is a case in which
some good has come of recent legislation, for the small boys
ceased to eat raisins on Good Friday after the passing of
the City Parochial Charities Act. It is only fair to Peter
Symondes to add that he saw the oddness of his bequest.

“ Although,” says his will, “ this gift may be thought very
frivolous, yet my mind and meaning being hidden may
notwithstanding be performed.”

THE PUBLIC SUPPERS

The public is more familiar with the Lenten Suppers than
with any other Christ’s Hospital function, though they have
now passed into history. Their origin and their purpose are
both mysterious, and for years past they have been little but
a most unnecessary and, for the boys, a not very comfortable
show, nor is it certain that they have ever been anything else.
But the ceremony has been so often described in the news-
papers by the guileless reporter that it may be well to give
such information on the subject as the Minute Books pro-
vide. On the whole it seems that it was the British Public
which decided that Public Suppers should exist, as part of
its pattern et circenses. Thus in 1684, shortly after Sir
John Frederick’s Hall was built, the Committee was \
desired “to think of a way how to prevent the Rabble of
people coming into the great hall on Sunday nights to see
the children at Supper, which causes great disturbance and
interruption in that affaire.” Then they arranged that a
beadle should “ keep the key of the door that leads up into
the Hall out of the Cloysters, and that the doore that leads
up the great staires shall be kept constantly locked up while
the children are at Catechize and Supper,” with the signifi-
cant addition that “ none but governors or other persons of
quallity” (who, of course, might take it into their heads to
become Governors) should be admitted. Two years later
things were as bad as ever. The question again arose “ how
to suppress the great concourse of people that come on
Sunday nights into the great hall,” and, this having been

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 233

discussed in vain, “at the same time every person present
was desired to think of a way or method to prevent the
same (if possible) for future.” There is no record of the
results of this united deliberation, nor any reference to the
Public Suppers at all for some seventeen years; and then
it appears that things had not improved. In October 1703
(the month showing that the admission of visitors on Sunday
nights was not confined to Lent) the porters and beadles
“were reproved for letting in such crowds of people and
more particularly such rabble as they doe usually [let] up
into the Hall on Sunday nights and for extorting money of
persons to admitt them in ” ; they were enjoined to let in
“onely people of fashion and not to ask them for money.”
At last, when the disorder could go no further, the Com-
mittee in 1709 hit upon the plan of setting open “the doors
in the Cloysters goeing up in to the great Hall,” as “ an
experiment whether the Hall will be crowded more with
people when the doors stand open than it is when they are
shut and attended by Beadles.”

These extracts will serve to explain the genesis of these
quaint and picturesque ceremonies, which were ultimately con-
fined to four Thursday evenings in Lent. Two hundred years
ago there was nothing for the restless Londoner to do on
Sunday evenings except sit sedately in his house. To interest
the wealthier citizens in the charitable work of the Hospital,
it was understood that they were free to visit the Hall during
supper on Sunday evenings. But it was not so easy to
distinguish between the potential benefactor and the more
unpromising and merely curious “ gazer ” ; for the Hospital
was practically a public thoroughfare and, whereas to-day
the undesirable visitor is stopped at the Lodge, the Governors
of 1700 and thereabouts could only hope to stop him at the
Hall Door. The matter was further complicated by the
commercial proclivities of the Beadles. The Christ Church
Lodge was practically a tap-room, and these visitors meant
good business, especially as it was their appetising privilege to
see others eat. If there were few benefactors in the rabble,
there were plenty who were equal to a small tip.

234 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

During the last century the custom became more attenuated,
though Trollope is responsible for the statement that, having
originally lasted “from the Sunday after Christmas until
Easter Day, both inclusive,” and then changed to the months
of March, April, and May, they were in his time started on
the first Sunday in February and continued till Easter.
But an ingenuous footnote of Trollope’s (p. no) shows
that there were already complaints of their “ irreligious
tendency,” as “ encouraging, in a certain degree, a profana-
tion of the sabbath.” He would have liked to exclude all
who were not able to give pecuniary expression to their
feelings, and hoped “ that the ceremony, which partakes of
a devotional character, may have the effect of warming the
hearts of every well-disposed Christian with the spirit of
charity and benevolence.”

The latter consummation has rarely characterised the
Public Suppers of these recent years, though they have
always “ partaken of a devotional character.” But they have
been treated frankly as a ceremony, not the less acceptable
because there is no charge for admission. From the entrance
of the Treasurer’s procession, headed by the Beadle whose
mace and (as far as pattern goes) whose robe are two centuries
old, to the prayers which were written by Compton, one
of the Seven Bishops, and on to the “ bowing-round ” of six
hundred boys in the dress of the Tudors, — everything
flattered the universal instinct for the antique ; and the Hall
in which the “ show ” was enacted fostered the delusion.

ST. MATTHEW’S DAY

The religious foundation has yet another ceremony “ par-
taking of a devotional character,” and that is its Speech Day,
which till some forty years ago coincided with the Feast
of St. Matthew. There can be no reasonable doubt that
the connexion of the Plospital with this day is as old as
the first efforts to found the School. The first meetings
of the original Governors were held (says Howes) at the
Guildhall; but as soon as possible they “agreed together

SPEECHES ON ST. MATTHEW’S DAY

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 235

to mete all in the Compting house made for the Governors
in Chrystes Hospitall on the vith daie of October I552-”
At that period all Saints’ days were business-holidays and
therefore gave leisure for philanthropic work, and it is not
much to assume that there had been such a meeting on
the 2 1 st of September at the Guildhall, and even that this
was the day on which they fixed their first sitting in the
“ Compting house.” Five years later there was issued the
famous “ Order of the Hospitalls,” which probably did no
more than authorise established usages, and in this Septem-
ber 2 1st appears as an important administrative fixture.
“Yearly,” it says, “upon the day of Saint Matthew Th’
Apostle, at a general court to be houlden in Christe Hospitall
or els in some other convenient place, by the said governours,
or the most part of them, shal be elected and chosen new
Governours to govern the said hospitalls for ij years.” The
lists of those then chosen to be Governors in each of the
Royal Hospitals were to be placed in the hands of the Lord
Mayor and by him entrusted to safe keeping at the Guildhall
— a ceremony still associated with St. Matthew’s Day. One
other matter of administration formerly took place at the
same time. At the foundation of these Hospitals it was
arranged that their beadles besides guarding their several
premises should act as “ street-men ” with special attention
to beggars and vagrants. They were to patrol the wards
of the City and convey to Bridewell all “idle persons.” If
the “ idle person ” was too much for the beadle, he was at
liberty to “call for aid to euery constable next adjoyning,”
and, if the aid were not promptly given, he could report
the policeman to the Lord Mayor ; if the Lord Mayor took
no action, the beadle could report his lordship to the Court of
Aldermen. The “Order” (a.d. 1557) goes on to say that
the beadle must be particularly lively in his search for rogues
and idlers “at Pawl’s Cross, at the sermon time,” and at
the funerals of his neighbours ; but, as this latter service
was generally met by “ a benevolence ” from the family, “ you
shall not intrude yourselves to none other burials out of your
wards or walkes.” St. Matthew’s Feast was the day of

236 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

reckoning for all these beadle-streetmen. The “Order”
enacts that, when the election of Governors is finished, “ then
shall be called in before the saide courte all the bedells, who
shall deliver up their staves and depart the howse, that the
opinion of the Court may be hade touchinge the doing of
their duties, to the intent, yf any of them be faultye, that
he or they may be rebuked or dismissed at the discretion
of the said court, and thereupon to deliver up to suche
as then remaync their staves, and again establishe them.”
The Minutes give ample evidence that this enactment was
observed, and the entry of 1687 is interesting as showing that
“the City Marshall was called in to know whether the said
beadles had done their dutyes . . . who answered they had
done very well.” Whereupon the street-men were com-
plimented and had the badge of their office returned to them.
The entry under the date of April 3rd, 1696, explains why
judgment was committed to this imposing functionary,
whose duty it now is to prance at the head of civic pro-
cessions. “John Seaton” is there decided to be “the fittest
person to be the walking beadle for assisting the City
Marshall to cleere the Streets of Beggars.”

The point is not quite clear, but it is probable that this
inquest into the doings of the “ walking-beadles ” took place
after Divine Service, and, the further back we get, the more
probable is it that the custom of the religious observance of
the feast was maintained. In any case, it became an obliga-
tion for the Governors (that is, the Mayor and Corporation)
to attend service at Christ Church as early as 1619, by virtue
of an indenture of Mr. John Bancks, citizen and Mercer,
who was also Assistant Treasurer of the Hospital. He gave
property charged with a fee for the “divine,” on condition
that the Governors should “ go to the said sermon in a grave
manner,” and that the sermon should be over by ten o’clock
in the morning ; and it must be confessed that, though there
has been no alteration for the worse in the gravity of the
Governors, modern habits have long revolted at a service
in the City which must be over at an hour when the worthy
benefactors are just catching their train to town, or at any

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 237

rate opening their letters. The great matter is that the
attendance of the Civic magnates is a custom of consider-
able antiquity, and that the service was timed to immediately
precede the election of Governors. Indeed, they found the
religious side of their work forcibly emphasised in the
“charge” which forms part of the “Order of the Hospitalls”
already referred to. “Your charge shall be,” it tells them,
“that every of you endevour yourselves with all your wis-
domes and powers faithfullie and diligently to serve in this
vocation and calling ; which is an office of high trust and
worship ; for ye are called to be the faithful and true dis-
tributors and disposers of the goods of Almightie God to
his poore and needy members.” It was the business of the
“ divine ” who preached to urge this upon them. The records
have very few references to the names of the preachers.
“ Mr Shereing Minister of Christs Church,” and not an “Old
Blue,” preached in 1685, “ Mr Tho : Cooke,” for many years
classical examiner, in 1705, and in 1669, when the “ custome
had been discontinued since the sicknesse time,” and Christ
Church had perhaps not got its “ tabernacle ” complete, it
was suggested to the Lord Mayor “ that if his lordpp thinke
fitt, the sermone may bee in Great Saint Bartholomews
Church neere West Smithfield.” For many years past it has
been the general but not invariable custom to invite as
preacher “ one of the late scholars of the house, who has
passed through the university upon one of its exhibitions”
(Trollope). But one exception, nearly half a century old,
will occur to many. Dr. Jacob, the Upper Grammar Master,
though not a “Blue,” was nominated by the Governors as
St. Matthew’s Day preacher in 1854, and took the oppor-
tunity to rate the Governors in set terms and to bid them
put their house in order. It was an extreme act, though not
without its justification. But, however much Dr. Jacob was
valued by his pupils, his sermon left a bad taste in the palates
of the Almoners, and in 1868, before his work was anything
like complete, though not before his health seemed shattered,
Dr. Jacob retired on an ample pension. He was avenged of
his adversaries by drawing the pension for thirty years.

23S ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Our description of St. Matthew’s Day has now dealt with
the trial of the beadles and the hearing of the sermon ; but
the trial of the “ children ” was also part of the day’s duties.
Two hundred years ago, September 21st, or some day
between that and Bartholomew-tide, was the regular time
for the half-yearly examination. Therefore it was the
custom to adjourn from the church either to the old
Grammar School or to the Great Hall, and the “ Memord ”
of 1685 will serve to describe what took place up to within
very recent times : “ two boys made orations one Latine and
the other English to the satisfaction of the said Governours.”
These two represented the creme of Christ’s Hospital scholar-
ship, and were carefully prepared, as their modern representa-
tives still are, for their trying ordeal. But the whole school
on the 2 1st of September had that happy feeling which
arises in the boy-mind at the close of the “ exams,” and it is
to the credit of the Governors that twice each year, shortly
before Easter and St. Matthew’s Day, they had the results
of the half-year’s work overhauled.

The earliest reference to such an event occurs in the
minutes of a Court held in February 1583. “This corte
hath accorded,” it says, “that the Gramer Schole shalbe
examined on Wednesdaie the xxv of this monthe which
wilbe the daie next after St. Matais [Matthias] daie . . .
and that there shalbe a competent dyvine prepared for the
examinacon.” At the same time they decided to ask for
the services in this connexion of“Mr Nowell,” Dean of St.
Paul’s, and two others. All that has altered since then is
the date of the ordeal, which in 1676 they fixed for “the
week before or after Bartholomew day yearly.”

Year after year from this time onwards the books contain
a copy of each examiner’s report. Those of the Rev.
Thomas Cooke in regard to the Grammar School have
already been referred to, and there were also two mathe-
matical examiners (among whom occurs the fragrant name
of de Moivre), one for the Royal and the other for the
« New” Foundation. It is probable that the worthy citizens
on the governing body frustrated their own intentions by

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 239

not changing their examiners with greater frequency. The
office seems to have carried a vested interest, and Cooke
went on examining in the same subjects and giving reports
in much the same words for nearly twenty years. But the
rest of the curriculum (the writing, the reading, and the
music) was tested by the Governors themselves, and it was
always put on record that they satisfied themselves by their
personal observation that good progress was being made, or
that “ the Singing Master gave a touch of his performance
by causing the boys in his school to sing a verse of the
Easter Anthem.”

Of the matter of the two Speeches nothing is ever said,
but it can be readily imagined. There would be praises of
the Royal Founder, and gratitude to the worthy citizens who
provided the means to do the work of the Foundation. The
latter, as referring to “present company,” may not always
have been in the best taste. Indeed, an oration of Thomas
Kirke, given not on Speech Day but on some special occasion
in June 1664 at which Sir John Frederick, who built the old
Hall, presided, may serve as a specimen. “ How shall we
then, Dear Sir,” this youngster asks, “ be able to stifle our
joy, and bridle in our affections, who have the happiness this
day, in this place, to see the faces, not of imperious and
exacting Masters, but of our worthy Patrons, and to enjoy
especially the Presence of so Pious a Father, and so noble
a President ? ” And he works himself up to a conclusion
which may well have appalled the object of his attention :
“ In a word, Right Worshipfful, long may you live in peace
and safety : and when you dy, you shall swim to your grave
in the Tears of Orphans, and on your Tombe shall they
ingrave this Motto —

Here lies the Orphans’ Father, most discreet,

Rare Fruit, made ripe for Heav’n, for Earth too sweet.”

Happily Sir John postponed so terrible an ordeal for
twenty years. Since the middle of the nineteenth century
Christ’s Plospital has come into line with other schools and
held its Speech Day at the close of the summer term, and the

24o ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

English Speech is the only relic in the present programme
of these seventeenth-century effusions. It is now a chaste
record of the year’s events and does not promise the pre-
siding Lord Mayor a swim in other folks’ tears. One other
relic of St. Matthew’s Day has passed to Speech Day in the
custom of handing round “ the glove ” for the contributions
of visitors towards the University expenses of the Ex-
hibitioners just leaving the school. It may be conjectured
that the collection was originally made at the St. Matthew’s
Day service in Christ Church, where it would have seemed
less out of place. The ceremonies of the 21st of September
still conclude, as they have done for over two centuries, with
“the collatiop of wine and cakes.” Trollope gives as his
authority for this custom the journals of a Sheriff of 1740.
He might have found better evidence in the books of the
Hospital as early as 1687, with the added details that the
cakes were “ sweet ” and the wine “ burnt.”

THE PUBLIC LOTTERIES

It would not be right to omit a notice of one “little
system ” which had its day, and, none too soon, ceased to
be ; I mean the practice of allowing the “ Blues ” to assist in
drawing the tickets of the public lotteries. Their history
need not be detailed here, for it has been written as the result
of diligent research by Mr. John Ashton (1893) from the year
1569 to the present time. It appears that the unfortunate
habit of telling off a dozen of the boys for this purpose began
about 1694 ; at any rate in that year Pagett, the Mathematical
Master whose delinquencies are described elsewhere, put in
a sensible petition “ that none of the boyes in the Mathe-
matical! Schoole should be imployed in drawing the Million
Lottery [5 Will, and Mary c. 7], Mr. Pagett alleadging that
it will be a great hindrance to them in their learning, and
cause a great disorder in the Government of his Schoole.”
But at that time the Court did no more than say that the
selection of the boys for this purpose was in the hands of a
Governor, and, as a matter of fact, the “ Mathemats’ ” con-
nexion with the Lotteries was continuous and not always

DRAWING THE LOTTERIES IN COOPERS’ HALL

OF RITES AND CEREMONIES 241

creditable. After this date the records contain frequent
reference to the distribution of the sums paid to the boys
for their participation in this system of raising public funds.
Thus in 1712 a “ Mathemat,” who in spite of Pagett’s protest
had been allowed to take his turn at the wheel and was “ now
going to sea,” was “ paid the sume of three pounds nineteen
shillings and sixpence, his proporcon of the Moneys received
in drawing the Lotterys in the year 1711.” This extract
shows that the Governors minimised the evils of the system
by retaining the money till the boys were starting in life.
They had plenty of funds for apprenticeship purposes ; so
they either handed a boy’s share to his master, “ he giving
his bond to secure the same for the benefitt of the Boy,” or it
was arranged that the share “ be reserved for [the boy] in this
House untill he shall have served out his apprenticeship, the
better to enable him to follow his Trade”; as in the case of
“ a young man formerly of this Hospital that Drawed one
of the Publick Lotterys ” and who received his share in 1721
“haveing Faithfully served his seven yeares apprenticeship to
a Boxmaker.” Sometimes the “ Blues ” came in for larger
benefits at the hands of persons for whom they drew prizes.
In 1719 “Mary I vers Spinster” presented herself to the
Committee as being, the sister of a boy, since deceased, who
had been “ Intituled to a Lottery Tickett of Ten Pounds the
gift of a Person for whom he Drew a Benefitt Tickett ”
[worth £10,000]. She therefore asked that as “next kin”
she “might have the same with the interest due thereon”
since 1714. The interest was paid her, but the Committee
reserved the question of the principal, and its fate is not
recorded.

Mr. Ashton (p. 81) gives particulars of an incident which
by itself might have been sufficient to put an end to the
custom as far as the “ Blues ” were concerned. On December
5th, 1775, a man appeared before the Guildhall bench to
answer a charge of tampering with a lottery. He was
shown to have insured a certain ticket seventy-nine times
for one day. The witnesses included the “ Blue,” whom
this enterprising person, by means of “ several half-guineas ”

242 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

and a breakfast at a coffee-house, had induced to secrete
ticket No. 21,481 and make sure of its issuing from the
wheel at the psychological moment. Prompt action was
taken in this matter on all sides. A rough-and-ready justice
discharged the prisoner. The Committee met at the Hospital
next day (December 6th, 1775) and in a more serious sense
discharged the boy, expelling him there and then for tamper-
ing with the tickets — and he was a “ Mathemat.”

Yet even this undesirable incident did not make an end of
the employment of the boys at the wheel, for on December
12th, 1775, the Treasury issued an order to prevent “like
wicked practices in future,” which gave directions that,
before any boy was allowed to put his hand into either
wheel, the managers on duty were to see that “ the bosoms
and sleeves of his coat be closely buttoned, his pockets
sewed up, and his hands examined,” and that while on duty
“he shall keep his left hand in his girdle behind him, and his
right hand open with his fingers extended.”* At the same
time the Treasurer was asked not to reveal the names of the
twelve boys chosen for this office till the morning when
the drawing began. All twelve were to go each day, and the
Secretaries were to choose two promiscuously from among
them. With these precautions the boys continued their work
on into the nineteenth century. A “ Blue ” appears on the
advertisement of the State lottery of 1809, and it may be
presumed that it was still so when the whole system came to
an end in 1826.

It may or may not be that Christ’s Hospital has a richer
store of quaint ceremonies than other public schools ; but it
has had the advantage till now of being placed where such
ceremonies can be viewed by the outside world. How long
many of them will survive transplanting to Horsham “ lies
on the knees of the gods.”

The prescribed attitude can be seen in the illustration.

CHAPTER XIV.

OUT OF SCHOOL

“Boy ! the school is your father ! Boy ! the school is your mother ! Boy !
the school is your brother ! The school is your sister ! The school is your first-
cousin, and your second-cousin, and all the rest of your relations ! Let’s have no
more crying ! ” — Boyer to Coleridge.

IT is probable that there are few schools where the life
of the community in the Class Room is as distinct from
life out of school as up to this present it has been at Christ’s
Hospital. At the moment of writing there is a large staff
of masters, whose sole duty, with one or two special ex-
ceptions, is to be in their rooms and give certain lessons
for some six -and -twenty hours a week. When the bell
rings, they are not only free men, but, the sooner they are
off the premises, the higher does their reputation stand.
As this state of things, which is as luxurious for the masters
as it has been prejudicial to the boys, will come to an end
when the school leaves Newgate Street, it may be well to go
back and inquire how it arose.

Christ’s Hospital, it has already been said more than once,
began its career as a house of refuge for the young. Its first
staff suggests the workhouse rather than the university.
The “ Chirurgione,” the “ Barbor,” the “ Buttler,” the “ Under-
buttler,” the “Porters,” the “Bruer,” the Matron and the
“ xxv Systers,” leave us in no doubt that, however much
the general discipline might benefit from the strictness of
masters in school, there was plenty of work for a large
staff to do when school was over. Of these various original
offices two at least have survived through all the three
centuries and a half, as very distinct features of Christ’s

243

244 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Hospital life, — namely the “ Porter ” and the “ Syster.” The
Porter now calls himself “ Beadle,” and the “ Systers ” have
passed through an evolution and been improved from "nurses”
into “matrons.” All this while the order and discipline of
the children, when not in charge of the masters, have rested
in the hands of these two functionaries, and truly the standing
wonder is that the discipline has been so good.

To take the Beadle first. Our account of St. Matthew’s
Day customs has shown that his duties were not confined
at first to the Hospital, but that he combined with them
the powers of a policeman in the streets and as such was
under the supervision of the City Marshall The duty of
these Beadles, as laid down in the “Order” of 1557, was
to walk every day, “two and two together,” through the
wards of the City and to “ apprehend and convey to Bride-
well ” all “ vagrant and idle persons.” Both the words and
the circumstances suggest that we are in the near neighbour-
hood of Dogbeny and Verges. At the time the “ Order ”
was drawn up, the Porter was clearly more concerned with
duties inside the walls of the Hospital. “You shalbe atten-
dant diligentlie and carefully in looking to the gates ; chiefly
in the winter evenings, and se them shut in at a due hour,
and after they be shut in, to be circumspect whom you let
in and out.” The hour for the latest admission is nine p.m.
in winter and ten p.m. in “ somer season.” “ Faile you not
this to obserue, as you will answer thereunto if any complaint
come thereof, before the gouernours. And you shall not
make or medle in any other man’s office, but duely doe
your owne.” In course of time, however, it happened that
the Beadles were more and more employed inside the
Hospital, while the Porter added to his duties various
functions which eked out his scanty emoluments, and it was
no wonder that in early days masters did not think scorn to
be appointed to look after the Lodge. One reason why this
office was in request was that the staff as a rule were thirsty
souls. In 1683 the Committee desired the opinion of the
Court as to a report “ that severall persons in this Hospitall
doe send for beere from the Buttery which hath hitherto

OUT OF SCHOOL

245

been delivered to them and by Computation it amounts
to 3 Barrells in each weeke — which is a considerable charge
to this House yearly.” Mr. Parrey, the Chief Clerk, who
was apt to indulge, and whose indulgence (as the letters
in the British Museum reveal) landed him in applying for
a small loan to Mr. Pepys, produced an order of the Court
in 1638, which clearly settled the matter. “From henceforth,”
it ran, “ the Steward shall not deliver any small Beere to any
officer of this House w’soever.” But, if the Buttery ran dry,
there was always the Lodge to go to. It was reported in
1625 that John Phillips, the Porter, “did keepe an Alehouse
in his lodge without the license and consent of the Gouernors.”
The Porter’s answer to the accusation was that “hee did it for
the comoditie of the Neighboures and the officers of this
House,” but he was met at once by an order “ that no drinke
shalbe sold in this house by him nor any officer or pson
whatsoever.” It would appear that the Order was honoured
in the breach; indeed in 1636 Phillips came forward once
more with a petition to be allowed to keep “a Tippling house
for the selling of drinke and victualling.” His predecessor
had it, he argued, and it would tend to “the satisfying of
his creditors.” But he failed to get leave. How far the
Puritan era dispensed with “small Beere” does not appear
from our records, but at the Restoration there is again a
shebeen at the Lodge. H. Bannister, the Porter of 1662,
“employs a maide servant” to attend to the gate and “keepes
an Alehouse in this house, which may prove very prejuditiall
to the same and the inhabitants therein, in regard hee keepes
the keyes and may lett in and out whom he pleases at all
howers of the night.” If it happens again, he will “be dis-
missed from his place ipso facto,” and ipso facto was a terrific
phrase among the scribes of the Counting House. But the
Governors themselves were partly responsible for this par-
ticular taproom. The very next year, 1663, “ it was the
desire of severall Gent : some of them members of this
Hospitall that the place in the Stewards garden heretofore
a bouleing Alley might be fitted for that use, and the
said psons would engage that none but civell persons should

246 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Live the use thereof. Ihe Howling Alley, for which the
then Steward supplied the refreshments, had come to an end
in 1638, no doubt as the result of Puritan objections; but
now the Court gave a lease of it for thirteen years to the
very Porter whom they had ordered not to sell “ drinke and
victualling.”

Quite apart, however, from these enticements to a jovial
existence the Beadles had plenty of occupation. The Hospital
was for a long time without any great frontage on a main
street, yet it did not lack for gates by which to reach the
outside world. There was “the door out of Grey fryars
into the Gramar Schoolc yard ” (in the present Hall-Play);
“the Town Ditch gate next Little Brittain” ; “the doore out
of M1' Brice’s schoole into the Lodge ’’ ; “ the gate leading
out of the Cloystcrs along by the Church.” In other words,
there was ready communication with Newgate Street, Giltspur
Street, Christ Church Passage, and Little Britain. And the
work of the Beadles came to have several distinct parts.
They had to keep young children out ; they had to keep
the Hospital children in ; and they had to police the miscel-
laneous crowds who frequented the grounds.

The children whom they had to keep out were “ found-
lings”— a long-lived source of trouble to the School and
the neighbourhood. It would seem to have become acute
in the latter half of the seventeenth century. During
this period there were constant complaints that people
brought infants into the Cloisters and left them there in
the hope that the Hospital would look after them, and
there were constant warnings to the Beadles to patrol the
Cloisters and prevent the practice. In the case of a
notoriously negligent Beadle, called Robert Guppy, the
Governors in 1646 hit upon an ingenious penalty. He was
sentenced either to take charge of a recent foundling at
his own cost or leave his place. Of course the Governors
were very frequently merciful to the young waifs and strays
thus forced on them — which only aggravated the trouble —
and it must have been hard for the unfortunate Beadles to
prevent the “dropping” of the children in the crowded

OUT OF SCHOOL

247

thoroughfares of the Hospital. Their duties did not allow
them to be always patrolling the Cloisters, and in spite of
an order (May 1699) that “in such case they are to take care
that their wives doe attend the Cloysters in their absence,”
the leaving of children went on, till the parishioners of
Christ Church began to clamour loudly, for every child laid
outside the gates of the school became a charge upon them.
In 1696 the whole question was argued out before the Court
of Aldermen. The Hospital offered to take in one found-
ling, if the parish would be responsible for the next, and
so on alternately, but “ the parishioners did not seeme to be
contented therewith and soe departed.” No modus vivendi
appears to have been arrived at, nor was anything done
except to give the Churchwardens leave to post the following
notice at the various school gates (which indeed the Governors
should have done at their own expense) : —

‘ These are to certify that no Child or Children who are
dropped in Christ’s Hospital can receive any benefit from
thence.’

In fact, the Beadle was the only hope.

Secondly, there was the greater responsibility of keeping
the children of the Hospital within the walls, when the many
gates and the constant coming and going made it so easy
for them to “slope.” It must be remembered that in the
modern sense of the word there were no “ vacations ” ; the
school was never emptied of its young denizens at any
time in the year till the middle of the last century. There
were a few days’ rest after each of the half-yearly examina-
tions. The stereotyped reports of “the Visitacon of the
Schooles ” always end with a resolution in these words :
“ that the masters do break up School and play till Monday
morning next.” The same thing happened at Christmas,
Easter, and Whitsuntide, and all holy-days were half-holidays.
But to “ lye abroad at nights,” in other words, to go home for
a few days, was a penal offence. So “ chasing ” — in the
eighteenth century it was called “ elopeing ” — became a fine
art, in which some of the young gentlemen gave themselves
plenty of practice. The year 1710 shall serve as an instance

248 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Two boys (both “Mathemats”) ran away in June, eight in July,
two in August, and seven in September. The year following
would have served equally well ; for two went in April,
having been convicted of a similar offence the previous
September, one in May, five in June, and five in July. The
reason for such an epidemic is not given in respect of these
particular years, and indeed is very seldom clear. Take the
instance of August 1694 (the youths very seldom “chased”
in the winter) when “ Mr Steward informed this Com®0 that
there hath been lately ten boyes run away from the House
within less than a weekes time (viz1) three of them lay out
about 10 dayes and the rest a night or two, but are all now
returned againe & have received the usuall correction of the
House.” So the Committee sent for them “ and inquired of
them what reason they can give for their goeing away ; they
all made very triviall excuses, except Edward Audley, who
alledged that he hath been frequently beaten and abused by
the upper boyes of the King’s ward for not procuring them
money as oft as they would have it.” Per contra the “ Mathe-
mats ” alleged that Audley was “ a very lying boy,” and
the incident was closed in the usual manner “ by one of the
Beadles.” Sometimes the running away had a commercial
object, for the Steward was told in June 1690 to “charge all
the children that noe one for the future presume to goe to
any Taverne Ale house or other publick house to show their
writing or to sing or other wayes without leave first obtained
from this Comeo.” Sometimes it was from a sheer determina-
tion to vary the monotony of existence, as when two boys
in October 1720 “wandering Northward were from the City
of York sent by a pass to Hull and from thence Passed by
water to London and almost devoured with itch and lice.”

The Beadles, in the midst of all this determination of the
children to see the world, clearly had no sinecure. There
are occasional orders of the Committee that they should
redouble their vigilance; eg. in September 1711, a year
already referred to, “ that two of the Beadles in turn to-
gether with the Porter shall attend the Cloysters and Town-
ditch dayly all hours after schooltime and take notice and

IN 1823

IN 1901

130 VS’ WARDS

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY THE REV. O. K. JfEYWOOD

OUT OF SCHOOL

249

give up the names to the Steward of such Boys as shall
presume to goe out of their bounds without leave. This
means that they were to keep their eyes open to detect any
of the young gentlemen levanting. But the latter were
naturally sharper than the Beadles, as the horrible conduct
of Thomas Dawson will show (Court Book, December 12,
1717). He “had been notoriously guilty of breaking the
good Rules and orders of this House by ffrequenting the
Play-House and other irregularities and immoralities to
the ill example of other the children of this House.”
Worse still, it appeared that “ the way of their comeing into
this Hospital at unseasonable hours was through some of
the Tennements on the North side of the Town Ditch,”
and pains and penalties against the tenants were only re-
mitted on their “entering into a covenant to pay twenty
shillings by way of Rent on conviction of every Boy that
shall come through any of their houses.” In fact, the “Blue”
with only the normal tendency to assert the liberty of the
subject must have regarded the Beadle in the Cloister as a
perpetual check, save in the many instances where Beadles
neglected their duty altogether.

In the Wards and in the Hall the Beadle gave place to the
Nurse, and Nurses were not aforetime the kindly and efficient
ladies of to-day. They would perhaps reply that they were
hardly paid to be either kindly or efficient, for up to 1638
they received 2 s. 4 d. a week for their “dyet and Board-
wages.” In that year, “ in respect of the hardnes of the
times and the deerness of all manner of victualls,” the sum
was raised to 3J. 6d. in each case, except that of one nurse
who receives £ 6 a year “ for dressing the childrens soare
heads & mouthes.” She shortly afterwards resigned “her
place of surgionshipp.” But even at 2s- &d. a week they
were not always in a good temper. “ Rebeckah Robson,
one of the nurses,” it is written, May 1641, “ hath oftentimes
misbehaved herselfe and of late hath abused Mr Treasurer
as alsoe the Steward and all the Nurses with ill speeches and
bad languages and is a woman full of contention and brawl-
ing, which makes the Nurses weary to be in the House

- 50 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

with her. . . . Shee hath fallen out with one of the Nurses
and threwe a dish of scalding pottage in her eyes and face,
that she hath not been able to come from her bed nor hold
up her Eyes.” About the same time another nurse had been
calling the children “untoward names.” They were frequently
in trouble for “ harbouring ” their own children and keeping
lodgers in the wards ; it will be remembered that a ship’s
captain brought back a “ Mathemat,” whom he had taken as
apprentice, complaining that the boy had married a nurse’s
daughter before he went to sea. The nurses also were
sometimes reprimanded for keeping the girls of the House
as their servants and sending the boys on errands. But
considering that their office had its menial side, that it was
part of their duty to “ water and sweep the Hall morning
and att noone,” that they had to “constantly weare their
blue liveries ” on public occasions, it is a wonder that more
harm did not come of committing the children to their
charge. Against the livery they could and did protest (in
1687), “ which gave the Committee noe satisfaction.” Against
the contempt of the young gentlemen they could arm them-
selves with an order of the Committee in 1676 “that noe
Nurse permitt her children in the Wards to Ware their capps
in her presence.” At the very outset the nurses were no
doubt a necessity. Their charge as composed in 1557 bade
them “ keepe ” and “ sweetly noorishe ” the “ tender babes &
younglings” committed to their care. But the Hospital
maintained them in their place when it had become a school
for boys between eight and nineteen.

It may be well now to say what can be ascertained as to
the day’s routine in the Hospital during the first two centuries
of its existence. For a century and a half the bell rang all
the year round at six in the morning, and the children were
in school at seven. The present system of making some
concession in the winter began in 1702 with an order of
Committee that from All Saints Day to Candlemas Day
the bell instead of ringing at six shall not be rung till seven •
in the morning “to call ye children up & at eight to call
them to schoole.” As morning school lasted straight on till

OUT OF SCHOOL

251

eleven, it is obvious that the hour from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m.
(summer) and 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. (winter) was all the time
allowed for toilet and breakfast. It would be scarcely less
than an insult to antiquity to describe the washing accom-
modation prior to about i860 as “ primitive.” For instance,
the Committee had the question of a Bath before them in
1689, and did “not think it advisable that a hothouse or
place for salivating (sic) should be made in this Hospital.
But (with submission) doe think it very adviseable that a
convenient bath that will hold 6 children at the least be
made.” In the same year there is a reference to the system
that has prevailed to this present of washing under taps.
“There was formerly a sett of small cocks neare the Wash-
house for all the children to wash themselves separately, soe
that they might not wash together in Tubbs (as they now
doo) ” ; and they decided that there should be henceforth one
set of tapps “above staires” for the “ Mathemats and “a
convenient place below staires for the rest of the children
that soo they may wash their hands apart.”

However it might be accomplished, the Nurse’s duty is
thus given in an order of 1676: “In the morning at the
ringing of the second bell [presumably at 6.30 or 7.30
according to the time of year] every Nurse shall put her
Children before the Steward and Matron in the Hall in a
handsome and cleanly dresse, and then and there make com-
plaint of what misdemeanours have been Acted by their
children the night past.” In order to detect truants “ a
perfect Catalogue of the Children’s names ” was to be read
over at each meal. After morning school came dinner ; after
afternoon school there would be an interval before supper,
during which the children were permitted to amuse themselves
within certain narrow restrictions to be mentioned directly.
It is probable that the present supper-hour, six o’clock, has
never varied ; modern times have only postponed the hour for
going to bed, and the last scene of all from November 1695
to the present time has been the ringing of “the Hospitalls
publick bell at “three quarters of an hour past nine o’clock”
in order that all strangers might withdraw by ten.

252 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

But, if we are to understand the life of the place by day,
it is necessary to go into further details. The School, though
devoid of frontage, must have been a strange pandemonium
inside ; for the buildings till the nineteenth century were
never confined to their proper purpose. The public seem
to have established rights of way through the grounds. For
instance, the present Christ Church Passage represents the
custom of passing on business through the old Christ Church
under the lantern-tower into the Hospital and out again into
Little Britain. The minutes contain constant references
to the “ Long Walk,” whose actual course is not certain,
as will be seen in the account of the buildings, but it would
seem that it began at Little Britain, passed along the Ditch,
then through the West Cloister, and so by the “Grey Friars”
to Newgate Street, about opposite to Warwick Lane. This
constant coming and going brought with it a large amount
of “ traffic ” in another sense. The first case of this sort
after the Great Fire implies that it was only a continuance
of a previous system. In December 1666 “Mistress
Theame, shoemaker,” asked leave “to build her a shopp in
yc cloysters to sell Gingerbread inn, and she would pay the
yearely rent of xxxs ” ; she further begged the Governors
“ to build her a Shopp next the Great Gate to the Long
Walke [? in Little Britain] and another Shopp within the
Walls as formerly for her men to make shoes” for the
children. The Governors warned her that “she did keepe
very bad howers in the Booth that she hath erected in the
Towne Ditch,” and she got what she asked on the not
extreme condition that she “would not p’mitt hereafter any
children of the house to have any drinke att unreasonable
howers.” In 1717 it appears that Mistress Theame had
many successors. “ Severall idle persons and others selling
fruit and other things are frequently suffered to Loiture and
sitt in the Cloysters . . . which is not only of ill consequence
to the children but also makes Crowds and Stops to the
obstructing of Passingers and other inconveniences.”
Evidently the various gates left a good deal to be desired,
as is shown by an entry of the following year. Incon-

FROM A I'HOTOGRAl'H BY THE REV. V. F. HEYWOOD

OUT OF SCHOOL

253

venience, it says, “dayly happens by persons carrying
Burthens and sometimes by Cattle running through the
Hospital,” and it is suggested that the Treasurer should
have “a post or an Iron” placed “in the Middle of the
Doorways leading to the said Hospital.”

Mention has been made elsewhere of Sir John Moore’s
endowment for the Writing School. It took the form of
building shops in the six arches under the building. Wren’s
design (strangely enough, for the Bath is now close at
hand) was to use this space for “ a washhouse,” but the
Treasurer overruled him. The shops were built, and among
the tenants were an earthenware dealer, a “cordweyner”
(who, however, was not to “ mend, sell, or make any show
of shooes in his shop,” presumably to protect the monopoly
of the Hospital’s shoemaker), a “ sempster ” (female), a silver-
smith, and a milliner. All but the last paid a rent of £10.
The milliner, as having “ the first shop next the long walke,”
and therefore the best position, paid £13. The conditions
of their tenancy were as follows : “ They shall be single
persons as neere as may be” and the Hospital is not to be
held responsible for any “charge and damage which may
happen by their entertaining or harbouring of any friends,
relations, &c.” They are not to “sell any strong drink or
any other liquors whatever,” and they are to conform to the
hours for shutting up the Hospital at night. But in practice
these rules were useless. Within ten years the Governors
had to face the necessity either of insuring the Writing
School, which was “ in great danger of fire by reason of the
shops underneath,” or of pulling the shops down. Ulti-
mately they did both. In 1712 they insured their building
for £1,500, and six years later (1718) they pulled the shops
down to make “ a playing place.” But the boys would never
have had their “ playing-place ” if it had been possible to
keep the shopkeepers to their bye-laws and regulations.
Witness the comical case of John Hawkins and his wife,
who had one of the shops, and who were late home one
night in 1710. He was sent for by the Committee next
morning, “ but he being abroad, his wife came, and said that

254 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

the clock had but just gone ten, and that she got round to
Gray fryers gate before the keys were carried in.” Mr.
Hawkins, being “worst in blood to run,” came “over the
gate next Little Brittain.” The Committee sent Mrs.
Hawkins away with a message to her husband that “they
resent it very ill that he should offer to climb the Gates and
advise him to keep better hours.”

And beside this continuous traffic of all kinds, there was
the occasional excitement of “ bonefires,” which were stopped
“upon any occasion whatsoever” in 1707, and there was
the annual excitement of Bartholomew Fair. The actual
fun of the Fair centred in a spot outside the walls of Christ’s
Hospital ; but it is evident that the school-grounds were let
to stall-keepers during the Fair. Mr. Pepys on August 31st,
1662, after a visit to “ a pitiful alehouse,” with “a great deal
of trouble in being there and getting from thence for fear
of being seen,” met a bevy of lady friends at the Fair.
“ After that, with them into Christ’s Hospitall, and there
Mr Pickering brought them their fairings, and I did give
every one of them a bauble.” In such surroundings school-
work was obviously impossible, and it came to be the custom
to “break up school” for some days. But in 1667 appeared
an order that “ the children shall not play this Barthustide,”
and that “no booth shall be erected in this hospital this fair
tyme.” But the first part of it seems to have been disregarded,
for there is a still weightier pronouncement on the same
subject on August 22nd, 1698. It refers to “ the great hazard
and mischief that the children of this House may be exposed
to both as to their bodies and Moralls, by their being in
Bartholemew Fair, and the scandall that may hereby accrue
to this House, wch have been lately charged in print with
unparalleld immorality and irreligion [I understand the Fair
to be the antecedent of “ which ”] and also his Majesties late
gratious proclamation against Vice.” Taking all this into
consideration the Governors wisely ordered “ that the
children shall be continued at Schoole and the Bell to ringe
too morrow morning at the usuall houre ” and so throughout
the Fair.

OUT OF SCHOOL

255

Amid all this excitement and with so many interests to be
considered, it may well be asked what chance there was of
the boys getting proper exercise. Even now, with the generous
expanse of the Hall-Play entirely at their disposal, the
“Blues” are athletic, as the Scotchman is slanderously
affirmed to be humorous, “ wi’ deefficulty,” and their games
have been attended by a good many “surgical operations.”
But up to a century ago everything seemed to combine
against them. The Governors’ usual formula must have
been “writ sarcastic”; it appears in an order just subsequent
to the one last quoted, which agreed that, having been de-
prived of their “ Fair tyme” holiday, the children “shall have
liberty to play from this time” (September 27th, 1698) until
October 10th. But how much “liberty” did they get? The
first restriction was quite fit and proper. Some of the
Almoners of 1678 belonged to the Anti-Gambling League
and did “ forewarne the children that they play not att any
game for money.” Again, as the “ Hall-Play ” was not then
an “open space,” the natural place for games was in the
“ Ditch ” ; but the Hospital had tenants on the north side
of the Town-Ditch, who objected to games, and possibly with
some reason. “The inhabitants near the Towne Ditch,” says
a minute of 1678, “doe very much complaine of the rude
behaviour of the children of this Hospitall who with their
Racketts and otherwayes break their Windows with Stones.”
The Governors called the Steward and told him to go round
and “ command them to desist from such exercises as may
prove prejudiciall to the said inhabitants.” Hampered by the
crotchety inhabitants of the “ Ditch,” the youngsters would
try the “ Garden,” and just off the Garden, not separated
from it as clearly as now, was the Counting House Yard.
Every “Blue” remembers its sacro-sanctity ; we hesitated
even to recover from it a ball that had got there through
no fault of ours. This tradition can be dated quite early
in the eighteenth century, when there was a complaint of the
“ mischief and inconveniences ... of the children being
permitted to frequent and Play in the Compting House
Yard, they not only doing much damage by breaking the

256 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

windows but by their noise greatly obstructing and hindering
of business and interrupting of Courts and Committees.”
It was ordered that from henceforth the Counting House
Yard should be left in the peace which is still its pride. Once
more there is about this time a reference to the games, which
implies a further restriction of freedom. It takes the form
of a report, dated February 12th, 1725, upon “the great Mis-
chiefs and inconveniences that dayly arise as well to Persons
passing thro’ this Hospitall as to and amongst the Children
of the said Hospital, occasioned by their throwing of Snow-
balls Playing at Football throwing at Cocks or Bricks or
other things sett up in imitation of Cocks Trapp ball or
Crickett Castle Topps throwing Balls or Sticks one at another
or other such like games or pastimes were {sic) sticks are
used as also in Running about the House in the Evening
with lighted Torches Links or Candles throwing the same
at each other to the endangering of the Hospital by Fire."
It is no great wonder that the last should be forbidden, but
a fiat went forth against all the games mentioned. I have
left the Minute as it stands, without a suspicion of punctua-
tion, but it appears to warrant the belief that the “ Blue ” of
King George I.’s reign recognised Football, which was charac-
teristic of Shrove-Tuesday, a day not far removed from
February 12th; Aunt Sally; Trap-ball or Cricket, which
came into the public schools in the reign of George I., and
cannot have been very scientific on the cobbles of the Ditch
and would hardly be permitted on the turf of the “ Garden
Castle, a game which survived in my time on summer
evenings under such names as “ Storm the Castle,” etc. ;
Top-spinning, which still adds a terror to life about Easter
time ; and some form of “ Rounders,” which seems to be
implied in “ throwing Balls or Sticks one at another.” The
list is a fairly comprehensive one, and it is questionable
whether the notice posted up “that for the future no such
things be permitted or suffered to be done by the said
Children ” received or was meant to receive very much
attention.

Still it is no wonder that, if their games were interfered

OUT OF SCHOOL

257

with and they had no outlet for superfluous energy, they not
seldom became unmanageable. Sometimes it was necessary
for the Almoners, as in 1674, to go “upp into the great hall”
and “having called all the children of the House together” to
“ press the said children to yield obedience to the orders of
this house ” ; or that they should have to call the masters
together, as in 1703, when the latter “all delivered it as their
opinion that, notwithstanding they use all possible care to
observe and correct the boyes for their bad moralls, yet they
are much more ungovernable than heretofore ” ; or that some
of the youths had to be held in check with a threat that they
should “certainly be sent to Bridewell and be kept to hard
labour for a month.” The chief offenders against public
order both then and long afterwards, as “ Elia ” testifies, were
the “ Mathemats.” Beadles complained that they “ gave ill
language at home ” and showed “ rude behaviour abroad ”
at funerals. “ Mr Mountfort alsoe complained against them
for their insolence and sawcey carriage to him at Catechizing
time” (March 1707). There was a similar incident in 1719,
when the culprits “expressing a just sorrow for their fault
received a reprimand from the Right Worp1 The President.”
In 1728 there was a serious epidemic of Mathematical
bullying, “ chiefly by the Boys in the upper class and
sometimes by the Boys in the second class.” It took
the form of these young pirates “ insulting beating and
keeping in subjection the other children . . . and taking
from them their money, caps, girdles, and other things,
and compelling them to goe on errands and do servile
offices, as cleaneing their shoes, waiteing and being attend-
ant on them as servants.” The year following one of the
“ Dames ” lets in some light on to their system by com-
plaining to the Committee that “they did not conforme to
the Discipline and Rules observed in the Ward” but “gave
very rude saucy and unbecoming language to her” and
“ governed themselves by Rules and orders of their own,
inventing and making which they handed down from one
to the other.” It appears from an entry of April 4th, 1734,
that their insubordination was worst “ after they have passed
s

258 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

their examinacon at the Trinity House,” when “they look
upon themselves as no longer subject to the Rules and
Discipline of the House.” Nor were the “Mathemats” the
only offenders. Paul Wright, the head Grecian in 1735,
was also brought up on a charge of bullying. He was
ordered to make “ the Publick Recantation ” (of which more
directly) and to “make a theam in Latin and English”
on a subject to be selected by the Upper Grammar Master.
But Paul Wright had other views on the subject, and some
time afterwards it was reported that he had “neglected to
make any such theam, altho upwards of nine weeks ago
his Master had ever since excused his nightly exercise the
better to enable him to do so.” He was therefore sentenced
to bring it up on “Tuesday sevennights.” Apparently he
obeyed, for within a month he was sent up to Pembroke
with “the usuall exhibitions and settling Fees.” He after-
wards took Orders, obtained Hospital livings, preached a
St. Matthew’s Day sermon, and in 1781 issued “The complete
British Family Bible” in eighty numbers, as “the result of
more than forty years’ Study and Experience.” It professes
among other things that in it “all the difficult and obscure
passages will be clearly* explained,” and “the whole of the
Divine Revelation . . . displayed in its original Purity, and
rendered easy, pleasant, and profitable to every capacity, both
with respect to Faith and Practice.” * Evidently it must not
only have been cheap at any price but must also have
implied a repentance of its author’s youthful neglect of his
“ theam.”

The latter was by no means the only form of pains and
penalties in vogue at the Hospital. The most serious in its
consequences was expulsion, and this seems to have been
seldom resorted to, for the good Governors had no mind
to ease them of their responsibilities in this way. Most of
those who incurred it expelled themselves. They ran away
and never returned. At the end of some months it was
noted that they were absent, and their names were taken off
the books. If sentence of banishment was passed, some
* J. I. Wilson, Christ’s Hospital , ed. 1821, p. 197.

OUT OF SCHOOL

259

prominent Governor would often come forward and ask for
lenient consideration, as Sir Francis Child did in behalf of
two truants (“ Mathemats,” as usual) in 1710. Thereupon
they compounded for their offence by undergoing what was
technically called “ the correction of the House ” ; that is to
say, a beadle publicly birched them round the Hall, to give
the others an appetite for their meal. Those who went into
exile were always provided with a suit of “ towny ” clothes,
with the natural exception of a boy whose father wrote to
the Committee in 1704. This boy had absented himself
for “severall months,” and the father calmly asked that a
suit of clothes might be provided for his son as he could
not afford to buy any. Naturally the Committee decided
not to “ show him any countenance or favour whatsoever.”
But, as they were too zealous of their charge to resort to
expulsion with any frequency, it was necessary to have other
terrors in order to keep the young people within the bounds
both of the Hospital and of propriety. Thus in 1714 it was
acknowledged that “ the usual correction ” was not effective,
and the Governors resorted in the first instance to an attack
on the offenders’ dignity. In future “every boy running
away should be set at the lower end of the Table in the
Hall to which he belongs for the space of three months &
soe toties quoties as he shall comitt the like fault.” But
clearly the truants were not deterred by the unwonted
Latinity of the Counting House ; for it was laid down only
four months later (January 1715) that for the first “chasing”
a boy “shall be put into the Dungeon there to remain
three days and three nights and be fed with Bread and
Water and for the second offence to be expelled this House.”
On another occasion the punishment inflicted was that of
being “ confined three days in Easter week [when no work
was done] and afterwards sweep the Hall for a week.” But
there were physical expedients of a more stringent charac-
ter. “ Mathemats ” who without leave have “ walked down
the Keys or wharfs by the River ” are “ cohered during Mr
Treasurers pleasure” (September 1719). Another “ Mathe-
mat,” who “ got notoriously drunk ” when his school made

260 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

its annual appearance before the Lords of the Admiralty,
has to “ wear the collar,” and when the collar is taken off, he
is banished to the Writing School, presumably to have some
practical instruction on the Temperance question. Two
youths (I grieve to repeat that they also were “ Mathemats ”)
“ had behaved themselves insolently in the great Hall to Mr
Steward ” on Friday, May ioth, 1728, and they were ordered
to “ wear the Clog and Collar till Wednesday morning next”
This apparently Chinese punishment must be interpreted in
the light of what happened to two who had stolen a tart
from “ a Pastery Cooks Shop in Blow Bladder Street” They
must be “ severely whipt and wear the Collar for a week ”
(November 1725), but one of them, who was “seduced” to
the doing of this dreadful deed, had “ his Clogg taken off.”
In the same way two Hertford boys who had run away
and been conveyed by some good soul to Newgate Street
(March 1733) “were sent. back to Hertford with their Cloggs
and Collars on.”

But the Governors, like many public school authorities
in our own day, were determined to give every chance to
moral expedients. This is comically illustrated in an order
of August, 1728, which was drawn up with a wealth of
words implying the presence of a solicitor’s clerk in
the Counting House. The first offence whether of “the
Royall Mathematicall Boys ” or of the rest, is to have its
“reasonable punishment” at the hands of the master or
the Steward. In case of a second transgression “he or
they ” shall “ not be imployed as Monitor or Monitors ” ;
shall be degraded from “his or their seat or place” in Hall
“to the lower end of the said Table”; and “shall at every
meal, Breakfast Dinner and Supper,” before going to the
lowest room now assigned to them, “goe orderly and of
his or their own accord to the place in the said Hall
comonly called the Stone and after Grace said then and
there in most humble and submissive manner on his or
their knees publickly and audibly say and Repeat such form
of Prayer or Declaration” as the Almoners shall appoint.
The criminals shall then rise and “ask pardon of all then

THE PULPIT IN THE HALL

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY THE REV. D. F. HEYWOOL

OUT OF SCHOOL

261

present whom they have offended and of the children for the
ill example” given them. The Almoners within a week
were ready with a stupendous form of Recantation which
deserves to be rescued from the obscurity of the Minute-
Book : —

‘ I . . . having in more instances than one offended
against the Discipline of this House, and being now made
sensible of my Misbehaviour, by which I have rendered
myself obnoxious to the just censure of my Superiors ; and
out of a great abhorrence of those crimes I doe acknow-
ledge openly and confess, that I, being over ruled by a
disobedient and obstinate spirit, have resisted that authority,
which I ought, as oblig’d by the good and laudable and
established Orders of this House, to have submitted to.
For which and all other my late Follies and Misdemeanours,
I declare myself sincerely penitent, and in the first place
do humbly ask Pardon of my Maker, whom I have highly
offended, and of the Worshipful the Governors ; and sub-
missively ask pardon of my Masters and all officers whom
I have affronted, & of my schoolfellows to whom I have
sett a scandalous example, hoping by this hearty sub-
mission and Recantation that I may in some measure recover
the esteem of those whom I have anyways injured, resolv-
ing by the assistance of the Divine Grace, so to behave
myself for the future time of my continuance here, as not
to do anything that may give offence or be of bad example
to my Schoolfellows.’

This appalling deliverance was to be at once read out
to all the children in the Great Hall “ by the present boy
who reads in the Pulpit,” and was afterwards to be regularly
recited as a sort of bugbear to intending malefactors. More-
over, there is no doubt that for years the various criminals in
the school had to go to “ the Stone ” and repeat it on their
knees; for instance, “a boy who has twice run away” (July
l7 32)> Paul Wright, aforesaid, (March 1735), and six
“ Mathemats ” who had been “ tendring their Silver Badges
to sale (October 1735)- Unfortunately, it is hard to see
how the confession, being couched in verbiage which even
Paul Wright would have to stop and think about, can have
been anything but a not very solemn farce, while its effect on
the rest of the School would be dissipated by the fact that

262 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

their meal was served so many minutes later than usual.
There is much more common sense in the proceedings of
a number of Governors who had met at “the New England
Coffee House” to make rules for the prevention of so much
running out of bounds. Their expedients involve a good
deal of responsibility being laid on Monitors. Before the
conclusion of each meal the Steward is to send Monitors
to each gate, who are to take down the names of any boy
going out without a ticket, but are not told to stop him ! In
the same fashion the Beadles are told to “ attend at the top
of the Gallery-Stairs in Church-Time to see that the Children
who go down return,” whereas it would have been more
effective if the Beadles had been posted at the bottom of the
stairs or at the Church doors. The children are to sit in
Hall in order of seniority, and each is to give notice to the
Steward “of his next fellow that is absent.” A more
sensible practice which survives to this present is laid down
in the direction that “ every night, as soon as the Children
are called over by their names and begin Duty \i.e. evening
prayers] in their severall wards,” the door is to be locked and
absentees are to be reported in the morning. Any such
absentees are to be punished, “and, if that Dont answer,
then to bring them before the next Committee.” I am
afraid it turned out that neither the bringing before the
Committee nor the “ Publick Recantation ” seemed to
“answer”; for in April 1739 there is again a reference to
the “ Scandalous liberty taken by the Children in Running
out of Bounds on Sundays and other Days and thereby
Absenting themselves from Church and the Hall.” So much
so, that early in the following year two further expedients
were resolved upon by the genial Inquisition of the Court
Room. The first order was “ that a Post be affixed up in the
Great Hall of this Hospital for the more exemplary correc-
tion of such Children who shall hereafter be guilty of very
Hainous Crimes ” ; secondly, that, “ to deter them from com-
mitting any Notorious Crimes, the antient order of Punish-
ment by Whiping (sic) the Children on their Naked Backs
Round the Hall be for the future revived and put in Prac-

OUT OF SCHOOL

263

tice.” Sad to relate, a Beadle was guilty of “ disclosing to
the children” these stern resolutions, “whereby they run
away to prevent such punishment ” ; but the Committee
soon secured a corpus vile in the shape of a “ Mathemat,
who “has sold his badge for Five shillings and with part
of the Money bought a Horse Pistoll which he charged
with a Bullet and shott through the door of his Nurses
Room.”

It must not, however, be supposed that the boys were
rigidly restricted all the year round to the confines of the
Hospital. All that was required at any time was that they
should get leave from the Catechiser or the Steward.
Arrangements were also made for their going out for
walks. As early as 1678 the Catechiser received directions
“ that upon any holy day he permitt but one ward of boyes
to goe forth and that they bee injoyned to goe to Islington
Fields and that one of the Beadles shall goe forth with the
Children to take notice of their Behauiour.” In the same
way the “ guirles ” were to “ goe halfe att one time and halfe
att another on Holy Days.” Clearly the Committee of 1721
at “the New England Coffee House” was prepared to give
plenty of “leave,” for it recommended that five or six hundred
“new ticketts be struck on Copper or Brass” with “a whole
(sic) through the rims for string to prevent their loosing
them.” The probability is that the boys had too much “leave”
rather than too little, for it is hard to account in any other way
for penalties being threatened to any boy who “ shall at any
time be found drinking at any Alehouse,” or for the —
probably by no means unwelcome — injunction to the Beadles
to patrol the neighbouring Alehouses or “ any other they
shall suspect any of the boys may frequent.”

Before this chapter can pass on to modern times, it is
necessary to give some account of the ancient office of
Steward. This personage has been mentioned more than
once in connexion with the discipline of the school, and up
to about i860 he had independent charge of the boys out of
school hours, being responsible only to the Committee. He had
to preside at their meals and see to their personal neatness.

264 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

He assigned them to their wards and appointed monitors,
though apparently with some reference to the Upper Grammar
Master. He was commander-in-chief of the Beadles, and
regulated the system on which the youths had leave to go out.
It was his business to be present at the services which they
attended in Christ Church, where, says Trollope, “their
deportment is closely watched, and any indecent or un-
devout conduct is reprimanded or punished.” In addition
to his duties as a disciplinarian the Steward was the com-
missariat officer. In the year i860 came an important change.
The Steward was then left to the duties appropriate to his
name, and to the care of the clothing department, his re-
sponsibilities for keeping order out of school passing to a
new official entitled the Warden. At first the Warden was
independent of the Head Master, he was generally a retired
military officer, and the result was to set up a sort of dual
control. His very title caused misunderstandings, and for
every outsider who took him for a drill-serjeant there was
probably another who believed him to be Head Master.
Since 1876 the Warden has been entirely subordinate to
the Head Master; but even so, and well as the system has
worked, it is not satisfactory that boys should be responsible
out of school to an official who cannot control them during
school-hours, or that during school-hours they should be
under an authority which has no powers out of school.

Modern times have seen great changes both in “leave” and
in holidays. In Trollope’s day alternate Wednesdays were
“ whole-leave-days ” for everyone, besides the many occa-
sional days, such as Founder’s Day, the Sovereign’s and the
President’s birthdays, King Charles’ Martyrdom, King Charles
II.’s Restoration, the Great Fire Day (September 2nd), Gun-
powder Plot Day, Lord Mayor’s Day, the Accession Day of
Queen Elizabeth and many holy-days. In fact there were
some forty whole holidays in addition to the alternate
Wednesdays. Wednesdays and Saturdays were half-holidays,
when special leave was granted to the boys to go out after
their midday meal. On the other hand, the vacations were
still short,— eleven days at Easter (when comparatively few

OUT OF SCHOOL

265

boys went home), four weeks in the summer, and fifteen days
at Christmas. But the Commissioners of 1837 found that
the occasional holidays were considerably cut down and the
vacations extended, and in recent years there has been
further progress in this direction.

Nor is it necessary to add that the factious interference of
the Committee with games is a thing of the past. True,
there is little possibility of any but rather hazardous athletics
on an asphalte pavement. But the great generosity of the
present Treasurer and his predecessor, Mr. J. D. Allcroft,
has provided a ground in the suburbs, and for many years
the Christ’s Hospital Cricket Club and the Christ’s Hospital
Football Club have sent out their challenges and acquitted
themselves as well as their limited opportunities for practice
would permit. Grecians and Deputy Grecians have found
in the Christ’s Hospital Rowing Club, which in its essence
existed far back in the nineteenth century, a means of
preparing themselves for college contests at the Universities,
though there it has generally been found that, however good
their “form,” they are lacking in weight. The annals of
the University Boat Race do not therefore make the Christ’s
Hospital “ Blues ” famous among “ Blues ” of another sort.
The last twenty years have also seen systematic gymnasium
instruction provided for the whole school on the site of the
old Giltspur Street “ Compter.”

All this activity out of school hours has told immeasurably
upon the discipline of the place. The violence of the
“ Mathemats ” and the occasional bullying by the bigger
fellows have disappeared. The Beadle, the official casti-
gator of old times, holds in that respect a comparative
sinecure. And, in a similar connexion, the cane has prac-
tically vanished from the class-room. The evidence before
the Commissioners of 1837 “led to the conviction that some
reformation was needed in this matter,” and they noted that
regulations had already been introduced “ which we trust will
effectually guard against any future abuse.” But many a
“Blue,” whose time fell during the middle of the nine-
teenth century, will smile at the Commissioners’ innocent

266 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

confidence, and the present Head Master could unfold a tale
of the difficulties he has had in bringing about a state of
things in which a thrashing under any circumstances either
in school or out of school is a nine days’ wonder. In the
words quoted elsewhere, the staff has learnt to enforce obedi-
ence “ more by shame than smart.”

CHAPTER XV.

AFTER SCHOOL

“So I put on my coat and waistcoat, and, what was stranger, my hat.”

Leigh Hunt.

I T is not the purpose of this volume to give a detailed list,
still less the biographies, of all the distinguished sons of
Christ’s Hospital. Such a list, admirable as it might be,
would provoke comparisons which would not be wholly
favourable to our Foundation, especially if the reader does
not stop to consider that a “ Blue,” when he starts in life,
has in almost every case neither money nor influence at his
back. His old nursing-mother in Newgate Street has done
all she can to fit him for the battle, but she cannot fight it
for him, and, if he had a posse of wealthy and influential
friends, he could have had no right to receive her nursing.

It is the more unnecessary to give any list of famous
Christ’s Hospital scholars, as a record has been prepared
with infinite pains by Mr. A. W. Lockhart, the present
Steward. What is proposed as the subject of this chapter
is the system by which “Blues” were sent to the Universities,
or otherwise started in life, rather than the individual results
of the system. It should be understood that when the
Plospital took charge of a child, it considered itself (certainly
till one hundred years ago) responsible not only for its educa-
tion but also for giving it a fair start in life. The boy or
girl on entering the school passed from the parental control.
During the years they were on the foundation the children
never slept at home. They were fed and clothed both physi-
cally and intellectually, and the ingenuity of parents must have
been taxed to find any “extras” to provide. We have seen

267

268 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

that the children fell naturally into two classes, the clever
and the not-clever. The latter were apprenticed, and the
former were prepared for the Universities. It has been said
that the earliest register of names is lost, and the personal
history of our exhibitioners begins with the year 1566. At
that time it would appear that the sums voted for their
support at the Universities came out of the ordinary funds
of the Hospital, and were sent, as they are to this day, not
to the student but to his tutor. John Prestman, the first of
this long line, was granted “ xiid weklie ” while at Cambridge,
and when he migrated, according to the custom of the time,
to the sister University, the grant was continued on condition
that “ his tuter or gounor of the house wheare he is shall
wryte to this corte of his aptnes.” The Court began in his
case (assuming for the moment that he was the first, which
is by no means likely) a custom, which it maintained for a
couple of centuries, of making a gift (“5 mke”) “towrds his
charge and aparell in pcedinge Batchellar.” And Richard
Coif (1569) is worth mentioning as having received in common
with every exhibitioner to this day “ soche bookes as he hath
written for.” Indeed so keenly did the Governors feel the
need of going ahead with this part of their work, that in
1569 we find them sending the Treasurer and three of their
number to “ Mr Secretorie Cissell ” to “ moue hym touching
the prefermet of certaine of the children of this house to the
vniusitie, to thintent the Quenes pleasure may by him be
knouen therein.”

No doubt their difficulty was a financial one, and those
who believed most heartily in the future of the Hospital
soon came to their aid. In this, as in other good works,
Dame Ramsey was among the first. Thomas Dixon, in
1574, left enough to send one scholar to Oxford, but Lady
Ramsey’s will of 1599 gave £>4® a year to the Master of
Peterhouse to be laid out for the support of four scholars
and of two fellows to be elected from among these scholars.
They were to be “the sons of poor men of the Queen’s
subjects born within this realm, and that of the poorest sort
of men not able to give maintenance to such children.”

DAME MARY RAMSEY

FKOM AN ENGRAVING OF THE l'ORTKAIT IN THE COURT ROOM

AFTER SCHOOL

269

Every such scholar on his admission had to swear “ that he
had not only a mind and intent to endeavour himself to
learning, but also that his purpose was to enter into the
ministry of God’s holy word, and become a publisher and
preacher of the same.” And every such fellow was obliged
within one year to enter into holy orders, and took upon
himself the not inconsiderable promise that he would “ in all
his sermons praise God for the godly act of Lady Ramsey
done to his church.” For some reason, the responsibility
for which the College and the Hospital must share between
them, Lady Ramsey’s good intentions towards the Hospital
have not been carried out, as the following figures will show.
In the thirty years (1599-1629) after the date of her bequest,
six, or possibly seven, boys went from the Hospital to Peter-
house on the good lady’s foundation. But in the 250 years
that elapsed between 1629 and the throwing open of all such
scholarships, only six “Blues” were elected scholars of Peter-
house, of whom Jeremiah Markland was one. As the
Hospital all that time was able to provide students for other
colleges, the reason could not be that there was not among
the children “ brought up and instructed in the grammar
school there, any one worthy or sufficient to be elected.” It
would appear at this distance that it was the obvious duty of
the Master of Peterhouse to send to the Hospital and obtain
his pupils, and in 1663, when no “Blue” had had his fair share
of the Lady Ramsey benefaction for thirty years, some
members of the School Committee, who had been on a visit
to Cambridge, thought that the Master of Peterhouse ought
to be looked after, to see whether her ladyship’s will “ hath
been p’formed according to a deed betweene the said
Colledge and this hospitall.” But it was not till 1689 that
they took the question up seriously, when the Treasurer
announced that he “ had put a stop to the payment of £20,”
being the Lady Ramsey gift for the half-year, “ for that he
conceived the Master and ffellowes of the said colledge did
not rightly performe the said gift as they ought to doo.”
He was therefore asked to inquire of Dr. Beaumont, the
Master, “ the names of the ffellowes and scholars enjoying

270 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

the Lady Ramsey’s exhibitions,” and to make sure as to
“the circumstances of their Parents, whether they be knowne
to be of the Lady Ramsey’s ffoundation,” that is, pre-
sumably, whether they were in need of assistance towards
their sons’ education. In the following year the difference
between the College and the Hospital became more acute,
and the Master and fellows, firm believers in arbitration,
suggested a reference to two lawyers on each side. Six or
eight months later Mr. Midgley, a prominent member of the
Committee, had a personal interview with the Master of
Peterhouse, who said that the Society “ had comply’d with
the said gift as much as in them lay.” If the Hospital still
refused payment of the £40 a year, “they must make a
distress according to the said deed.” Having, however,
received an assurance from Mr. Midgley that he would get
the money paid, the Master condescended to account for the
paucity of Christ’s Hospital boys among Dame Ramsey’s
scholars. “It was a rule in their House,” he said, “none
should be admitted under the quality of a Pentioner before
the said gift was given them, but that if the Hospital would
send one of their children and allow him what they doe at
other Colledges, they hoped that with the said Lady’s gift
and otherwise, they might enable him to support a pentioner’s
charge.” Counsel’s opinion seems to have been against the
Hospital, and the Treasurer was asked to “negotiate the
affaire on the best termes he can.” But it may be permitted
to a Christ’s Hospital boy, who was also a scholar of Peter-
house, to express the opinion that the College had no busi-
ness to accept a trust for the benefit of poor students and at
the same time to make such arrangements that it was im-
possible for a poor student to enter at the College. Most
of the “ Blues ” went to the University as sizars. The pride
of Peterhouse (it has long since been humbled) revolted at
the very idea.

Fortunately, at the very time (1688 and the following
years) when the Hospital was at loggerheads with Peter-
house, another benefactor of poor scholars came forward in
the person of Mr. Serjeant Moses. He left his estate equally

AFTER SCHOOL

271

between Christ’s Hospital and Pembroke Hall, Cambridge.
The half devised to the school was to provide exhibitions
of £10 a year for as many of its pupils as should be fit
for the University, and the other moiety was to found
scholarships at Pembroke to which “Blues” were to “be
entitled before any other.” The bequest is interesting as
being an act of gratitude for mercies received at Christ’s
Hospital, “ where he was not ashamed to own that he had his
first Education and the groundwork laid of such future
competences and comfortable circumstances as he had en-
joyed and been in through the remaining course of his life.”
William Moses had been admitted to the School “ from
St. Sauiors in Southwarke,” and proceeded to Pembroke Hall
in 1639. He was elected by the fellows as their third
Cromwellian Master in 1654, suffering the inevitable ejection
in 1660. But, as a Serjeant-at-Law in large practice, this
did not affect his good fortune to any great extent. And,
besides its personal interest, his will was the beginning of
a long and close connexion between Pembroke and the
Hospital. From 1688 until the special privileges of the
“Blues” at the College were abrogated, more than one
hundred and thirty of them have gone to Pembroke,
including Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Dr. Haig-Brown and
the present Master of the College. Indeed from 1718 to
1788 it was quite the exception for our students to go any-
where else.

But the great point to notice is that the Governors con-
sidered themselves just as responsible for giving a boy a
University education, if he wanted it, as for giving another
the means of apprenticeship to a trade. Thus James
Hewlett (1661) applied for this privilege, but there were no
exhibitions vacant ; so an arrangement was made “ that for
some small tyme hee should dyett with Mr Perkins the
Gramer Schoole Maister,” and he was to be provided
with “ a suite and cloake and other necessarys.” The great
Joshua Barnes (1671) went to Emmanuel College with
“ clothes, bookes, and bedding,” besides an ample exhibition.
In due time he won a fellowship, but still pleaded that

272 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

the Governors should continue his exhibition, as the fellow-
ship “ affords noe more than a necessary subsistence, un-
lesse he were capable of taking pupills, wch he is not by
reason of his great infirmity of deafnesse.” In fact, he con-
tinued till 1687, when he was an M.A. of eight years’ standing,
to receive gifts “ for his incouragement.”

It must be confessed that some of the young gentlemen
made a poor return for this fatherly care. Take the case
of George Cox, of Peterhouse, who thus makes his petition
(1667) as “ a distressed orphan." “ Your petitioner hath been
led aside by the instigacion of companions and by the per-
verseness of his nature hath fell into severall misdemeanors,
soe he hopes that as your proper vertue is clemency you will
mercifully consider of him and his condicioun upon his
promise of reformacion.” But the Governors had no faith
in his “promise” and refused to help him any further. In
another instance they saw reason to be lenient. “Wm
Collins of Catherine Hall, Cambridge,” had got into debt
both there and in London to the amount of .£13 5^. 6d. So
two of the Governors were desired (September 1696) to go
“to Mr Isaac Newton, the Math: Professor” and get his
advice. “ Mr Professor Newton was pleased to give an extra-
ordinary character of [Collins’] proficiency in the study of the
Mathematicks ” and “ advised that the said Collins should
forthwith returne to the University.”

The case that gave the Court most trouble, such as less
generous folk would not have taken, was that of Benjamin
Lee. He had been sent to Trinity College, Oxford, in 1692,
where the first difficulty arose through the extravagance of
his Tutor. The Treasurer heard to his horror that Lee and
Billingsley, who went with him, had been provided with “ such
indecent apparell that it’s a shame they should be seen in it,
it being too Gay and fine for their station.” On the receipt
of this serious news the Committee entrusted the Treasurer
with the task of providing “such a suite of clothes as he in
his discretion shall think fit,” desiring the extravagant tutor
to “ lay up and preserve those clothes he provided until
futher order.” After this the Court were hardly surprised

AFTER SCHOOL

2 73

to learn that Lee had asked his tutor for “licence” to go
home and “see his sick mother,” and had neither gone to
see her nor returned to Oxford. Then came tidings that
he was “in custody in Wood Streete Compter” for debt,
and, worse still, “was not yet truely sensible of his past
follyes.” So there he was allowed to stay from November
1693 to the following April, when his discharge was paid for
out of his exhibition “ on the best termes that can be,” and
he “ gave sincere promises of Reformation and amendment
of his past life.” Any other institution would now have
sent him about his business, but the Court still felt that they
stood to him in loco parentis. He had made a poor show at
Oxford. Why not let him have a fresh start at Cambridge,
where perhaps they would waive the usual bene discessit?
Treasurer Hawes, who wanted “ to inquire into the behaviour
of the other students there that went from this Hospital,”
offered to “see the said Lee settled” at Emmanuel College.
Ten days later (May 1 8th, 1694) the poor Treasurer returned
with worse tidings than ever. “ On ffryday last he went to
Cambridge to see Lee settled there — And on Sunday
whilst he was there, the said Lee pict up some of the
young students about 3 o’clock in the afternoone & went
with them to an Alehouse, and when he came home to
his lodgings, wch was about ten at night, was very drunk
soe that the Colledge nor himselfe did not think fit to con-
tinue him at the University, having committed such an
egregious fault at his first entrance.” So the Treasurer
“concluded to returne him to London.” And still they ask
what is to be done with him, “ whether to have him sent
to Bridewell or how else to dispose of him.” Finally, they
“ thought fit (it being the desire of the said Lee) that he shall
be disposed off to the sea imployment, & be bound to Mr.
Stone a mate of a ship for 5 yeares.”

After such longsuffering as this, it is no wonder that the
“Blues” at the Universities got into the way of appealing
to the Governors on every conceivable occasion. In 1694
letters came from two of them at Trinity “who therein
desires advice whether they had better take orders or not ” !

274 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

William Collins, already mentioned, came to London on
Isaac Newton’s invitation in 1696 with a view to a clerkship
at the Mint. But Newton failed him and gave the post
to someone else; the visit to town ran Collins into debts,
which were discharged out of the Exhibition Fund. Or,
having got what advantage they could at Cambridge, they
sometimes wanted to travel on the Continent. Mordecai
Carey, of Trinity, afterwards Bishop of Clonfert, brought
a letter to Mountfort from Dr. Bentley, dated “St James’s
Jan 30. 1708/9,” in which the Great Master urges Carey’s
appeal for aid. “ I am desired by Mr Carey,” he said, “ to
recommend to you his request for permission to travel abroad
this next year with Mr Jurin. I am intirely of that opinion
that it’s the best way that either of them can take for their
improvement, and is the most promising step towards their
rising in the world.” On this high authority, the Governors
granted the petitioner a year’s exhibition. Not, of course,
that they were equally complaisant in cases where the need
was not so real. Jurin, of whom more later, and Kinnesman,
who may perhaps be identified with the man appointed tutor
to Bentley’s grandson, Richard Cumberland,* applied “ to
have some money beyond their yearly allowance to buy
bookes ” ; but they were reminded that, as they had Scholar-
ships at Trinity and exhibitions from the Hospital, they had
better “live within compass and provide themselves books
out of their yearly incomb.” Again, Markland, also in later
years the friend of Bentley, one of the few “ Blues ’’ who
squeezed a Ramsey scholarship out of the Master and
Fellows of Peterhouse, sent to the Court in 1714 asking for
“an allowance of thirteen pounds twelve shillings and fifive
pence for the Cure of his eyes,” and was told that he might
expect £10 if he furnished further details. But in 1717 he
had to be shown that he must not abuse the Hospital’s
generosity. On June 27th he received ,£15 towards the cost
of his M.A. degree and on July 12th wrote to say that he
would be glad of “some allowance with regard to the charge
he has been at in entring upon his ffellowship ” ! But the
* See Jebb’s Bentley , ed. 1882, p. 201.

AFTER SCHOOL

275

Committee would have none of this. “ Finding no allowance
of that kind ever yet made or desired,” they refused outright,
in order “to avoid a presedent of so ill consequence.”

But if the Governors made themselves responsible for the
books and the furniture and the doctors’ bills of their prottgts
they were equally grateful at any success they achieved.
James Jurin, scholar of Trinity, who afterwards came back to
the near neighbourhood of the Hospital in his capacity of
President of the Royal College of Physicians in Warwick
Lane, was elected in 1708 to a Trinity fellowship, and the
Governors in their delight could not refrain from writing
to Bentley to thank him “ for his kindness to our lads in
general and more particularly for this remarkable favour.”
Bentley’s answer must be given at length. He was just
then at his prime, about forty-six years of age, and in the
ninth year of his Mastership. Sir Richard Jebb has pointed
out* that one of his earliest reforms was the introduction of
written papers in the examination for fellowships and scholar-
ships, so that merit might be better tested than it had been
by the vivd voce method. It is really with the success of
this scheme that this letter deals. It runs as follows : —

‘Trinity Coll: October 11, 1708.

‘ SIR, — I am much obliged to the Governors and yourself
for your kind acknowledgment of the justice done to the
scholars of your House, when they come under my examina-
tion for our College Preferments. There is nothing of favour
or partiality to them, which you ought to thank me for. Our
statutes forbid all that and I take an oath every election to
choose the most worthy without favour or affection. This
evenness and impartiality I have hitherto by the Help of
God observed, and by it have rais’d the Industry and
Learning of our youth to a pitch unknown before. And
in this method I resolve to continue ; so that when you hear
that any of your foundation have succeeded here, you may
conclude they have behaved themselves very well ; but if any
of them miss, do not inferr that they are bad, but that we had
others that were better. ’Tis now come to that pass in our
college that many very worthy young men (considered in
themselves) are yearly passed by here, being outdone by

* Bentley , ed. 1882, p. 99.

276 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

others that are better still. A Scholarship may be acquired
here with competent learning; but a ffellowship requires
extraordinary merit to attain it. I must recommend there-
fore Mr Jurin to your favour as a youth of very great hopes.
By my advice he designs to spend the next spring and
summer in Holland, and I allow him a travelling ffellowship
for that time towards his support, which is the highest
courtesy our House can show him. If your constitution can
add anything to his further encouragement, I dare engage
he’ll make a right use of it ; and, considering him now as
mine, no less than yours, shall owe it as an obligation

‘ to Your very humble servant
‘ Ri: Bentley.’

Such fatherly care, for which the great scholar’s enemies in
the college gave him little credit, naturally provoked the
generosity of the Governors, who at once granted Jurin
£20 and a year’s exhibition. At the end of his tour, the
young man was appointed at the suggestion of Trinity
College to the Mastership of the Grammar School, Newcastle-
on-Tyne ; in the following year he turned his attention to
medicine and died President of the College of Physicians.
But, in the case of most of their exhibitioners, the Governors
did not so easily get rid of their self-imposed responsibility.
Scholars, then as now, were by no means assured of a liveli-
hood and two ways of assisting them were open. They
could be appointed to the staff of the Hospital as vacancies
occurred. This habit seems to have begun early in the
seventeenth century. Thus John Vicars, who went from the
Hospital to Queen’s College, Oxford, about 1600 (the exact
date is not to be found in the books), returned later as Usher,
and only ceased from violent language against “Kings,
bishops, organs, or maypoles,” when he was safely buried
in Christ Church. In the eighteenth century every Under
Grammar Master from Samuel Billingsley to Lancelot Pepys
Stephens had been a Grecian and exhibitioner, and five out
of the seven Upper Grammar Masters. The staff was con-
siderably enlarged early in the nineteenth century, and during
that period some forty former exhibitioners have come back
to serve it as assistant-masters, while among the six Head

THE PORTER'S LODGE, EAST SIDE

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY THE REV. D. F. HEYWOOD

AFTER SCHOOL

277

Masters of the century (A. W. Trollope, John Greenwood,
Edward Rice, G. A. Jacob, G. C. Bell, and Richard Lee)
Dr. Jacob alone was a stranger to the Foundation.

But schoolmastering was not considered by the Governors
to be an altogether adequate provision for their scholar
“children.” Even in 1719, the best post they could offer,
that of Upper Grammar Master, carried with it a stipend
of only £120, and their funds allowed little in the way of
pensions. Matthew Audley, the ex-Grecian who was ap-
pointed at this salary, succeeded Mountfort, and the latter
had stayed at his post when “by reason of age and infirmity”
he had long been “rendered uncapable of discharging his
trust” (Comee Book, September 25th, 1719). Some members
of the Committee were therefore sent to ask him to resign
and “ found him very ill abed.” The old man “ readily com-
plyed ” with their suggestion, hoping to receive “ accompetent
allowance,” but he died within a week. In the ordinary way,
however, it was the custom to pass on both the upper and
under masters to the various livings in the Hospital’s gift, and
this, it should be noticed, did not imply that the Governors
took a mean advantage of their position as patrons. Christ’s
Hospital scholars have had two outstanding benefactors,
Lady Ramsey and Serjeant Moses, and six of the advowsons
thus used were due to these two, though there is no definite
injunction in either case that “ Blues ” must be nominated.
The Governors simply made up their minds to assign them
as a provision for their pupils. For instance, the vicarage
of Ugley, near Bishop’s Stortford, became theirs in 1599. R
was offered to one “Blue” in 1606 (no doubt at the first
avoidance) and to another in 1610, and has mostly been held
by “ Blues ” ever since. It generally served as the first step
in the ladder of promotion, the top rung being represented
by Gainscolne (or Colne Engaine). No doubt the Governors’
preference for school candidates produced a certain prone-
ness to holy orders. Take John Parker’s petition of 1675.
“Your petitioner,” he says, “being come to Towne upon some
businesse of his owne, was certified of the death of Dr
Cornelius, the late incumbent of your benefice of Clavering.

278 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Upon this your petitioner thought that a doore was opened
to him by divine providence to enter into the Ministrey
(which he had long desired) and a very promising oppor-
tunity offered him of bettering his condition.” He brought
testimonials from Cudworth, Benjamin Whichcote, and
Beaumont, the Master of Peterhouse, and he obtained his
desire. But he was no self-seeker, for, when the Governors
offered him the “ plum ” of their patronage, he “ humbly
returned this answere, that he was very well contented with
his present condicon.” It was not always easy for them to
abide by their rule to choose “ Blues,” for they often had
to contend against influence in high places. The Duke of
Buckingham, the favourite of the early Stuarts, sent a divine
with a letter in 1626, on the supposition that the then incum-
bent of Gainscolne was “very aged and weake of body” and
“ not likely to continue long with life.” He would be glad
if they would promise it to his nominee. But, with all “ due
and weighty consideracon taken of the earnest desires and
requests ” of the “ noble peer,” they replied that they in-
tended to present to the living “ a man much comended and
well aprou’d in the place where hee serveth (Ugley), who was
brought vp in this house, and maintain’d at the Vniversitie
with one of the Exhibicons of the said Ladyes (Ramsey’s)
guift.”

Still there were certain occasions on which they went
outside their own constituency to choose a clergyman. In
1667 they appointed to Gainscolne a certain “ Mr Clement
Sanckey, rector of S. Clement Eastcheap.” The Essex
parish was then described as being “ somewhat more troubled
with Nonconformists then other parishes, and therefore it
would be much to the honnour of this house to send an able
person both for piety and learning.” Perhaps if they had
asked their friend “Esq: Pepys” they would have chosen
differently, for according to the Diary * “Mr. Sankey of
Magdalen” was a favourite fellow-tippler of the Secretary
to “My Lords” both at “the Rose” in Cambridge and at
« the Fleece in Covent Garden.” As a matter of fact Sankey

* See Diary , July 15th, August 3rd, November 24th, 1661 ; April 2nd, 1662.

AFTER SCHOOL

279

utterly neglected his country parish. He was appointed to
it in January 1667, and Pepys ran across him in town on
April 5th. “In the street met with Mr Sankey, my old
acquaintance at Cambridge, reckoned a great minister here
in the City, and by Sir Richard Ford particularly, which I
wonder at ; for, methinks, he is but a mean man.” On the
whole, it is no wonder that he received the thanks of the Court
for resigning Gainscolne in 1678. On another occasion the
election of an outsider was directly due to the “ frugal mind ”
of the Court. There were three candidates for the vicarage
of Ugley in 1721, of whom only one was a “Blue,” and he
in the natural course would have been successful. But the
Governors were in a predicament which the following Minute
will explain. The “ Blue ” was interviewed first, and “ he,
with a becoming modesty expressed himself in these and
like words : viz1, Gentelmen, I came to town with a great
desire to obtain the viccaridge of Ugley, and should, if it
had pleased your Worp8 to bestow it on me, thankfully have
received the favour, But since here is a clergyman who is
recomended by a person who hath already been a great
Benefactor to this ffoundacon, and who it is likely will be
a greater Benefactor to it, if you desire it, Gentelmen, I am
willing to decline, as preferring the good of this ffoundacon
to my private interest. But I humbly hope that when any-
thing hereafter happens in your Worp8 gift you will consider
me.” The reason for their being so “ extreamly pleased ” at
Mr Hancock’s “ modesty ” is explained by the fact that the
Rev. Ferdinand Smythies, fellow of Queens’ College, Cam-
bridge, the benefactor in question, had “already given in
present and at his death Four thousand pounds or there-
abouts to this Charity, and that much more is expected from
him.” Hancock received a present of ten guineas on the
spot and the rectory of Wormshill later in the year.

The account of the funeral on November 1 8th, 1725, of
this benevolent old don is not quite germane to the matter
before us, yet it is worth giving, almost as it stands, from
the minutes of a Court held on February 16th, in the year
following : —

2 So ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

‘ Wee set out,’ say the Treasurer and his two colleagues, ‘ to
Cambridge in order to the interrment and setling the affairs
there of the Reverend Mr fferdinand Smithes late of Queens
College in the University aforesaid decd a Most Benevolent
and Munificent Benefactor to this Hospitall the Treasurer
whereof for the time being he had made Sole Executor of
his Will and who by the account made up for that purpose
appears to have given unto this Hospitall in his lifetime
and at his Death the sume of fifive Thousand pounds
and upwards over and above the one Thousand pounds of
his Will directed to be laid out for the Releife of Poor
Prisoners an account whereof is entered in the Books of this
Hospitall ; And on our arrivall at Cambridge on Wednesday
the 1 8th following in the evening We sent for Daniel Moulson
who had been servant to the said Mr Smythes for severall
years to inform ourselves as to his affairs there and also as
to the nature and manner of funeralls of Persons dyeing in
Colleges, and after some discourse we sent him to the Rev
Dr Davies Vice Chancellor and Master of the said College
of Queens with our respects to him and to know when he
would permitt us to waite on him, who appointed the next
morning being Thursday, when we accordingly waited on
him and acquainted him with the occasion of our coming
as the Hospitall were executors and residuary legatees, and
then shewed him the originall Will which he Read and was
well satisfied with as well knowing Mr Smithies handwriting,
And we then desired him to advise us (being strangers) how
to act as to the manner & ordering of the ffuneral ... By
his direction the Corps had been deposited in the Grave and
as afterwards appeared in an Elme Coffin covered with Black
Cloth, &c. . . . Accordingly we went to our lodging, and
gave proper directions for his ffunerall, determining to per-
form the ffunerall ceremonies that Evening at Six of the
Clock, the usuall Houre of Prayers in the said College.
About which time Wee repaired to the said College, were
we were introduced to the Master and Fellows in their Com-
bination Parlour, the Schollars of the Plouse being in the
College Hall, were the Hearse covered with a velvet Pall
stood ; and after the Master & ffellows were all served with
Scarfes Hatbands and Gloves And the Schollars with Gloves
and a Glass of Wine each We proceeded in Procession to
the Chappell, were we had the usuall prayers and the office
of Buriall was performed and we return’d to our Lodging.’

Then follows a long story of the way in which they settled

AFTER SCHOOL

281

up the good benefactor’s affairs, the chief trouble being that,
like some other benefactors, his charity had not begun at
home, for his rectory house at Eversden was terribly dilapi-
dated. They had his furniture valued and disposed of.
But “ the books of Mr Smythies being not many or as we
apprehend very valluable findeing no catalogue nor not haveing
time to make one Wee brought them up to Town for proper
inspection of persons acquainted therewith and the rather for
that, for want of knowing the reall Vallue, we apprehended
ourselves the more lyable to imposition there.” And on
their return to London the will and codicil were proved
“ in comon form.”

One other point must be put on record in justice to the
worthy citizens who administered the Hospital’s patronage.
From very early days they made a dead set against pluralism
and non-residence. In 1640 there is a black mark placed
against the name of Dr. Watts, vicar of Clavering. He
“ doth not reside but giveth a poore Minister to performe that
office and letteth the Vicaridge house to growe to decay and
a parte thereof already fallen and more like to fall very
shortly to the ground.” When Dr. Cornelius of the same
parish died in 1675, they expressed their sense of his short-
comings without scruple. He “had no waies performed his
promise made to the Court att his Election but had taken
other spirituall promotion and neglected his duty to the
parish.” They felt not only the loss entailed on their property
through his neglect, but considered that it “ very much
reflected upon the honour of this House, haveing noe waies
oblidged him under hand and seale to the contrary.” There-
fore, henceforward they made every presentee give a bond to
be resident; and when they found in 1720 that Edmond
Massey, rector of Gainscolne, “ has taken a house and wholly
lives in town,” they promptly summoned him to “ shew cause
why his bond should not be put in suite against him.” The
Governors in their zeal certainly appear in a better light than
“ Mr Archdeacon of Essex,” who is mentioned as “ attending
on his behalf.” Alas! in this, as in many other matters, there
was a great falling off during the eighteenth century and

282 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

the early part of the nineteenth. Grammar Masters were
appointed to benefices and allowed to retain their place on the
staff, visiting their cures, if it suited them, during the summer
holidays. Peter Whalley and Dr. Rice were both vicars of
Horley as well as Upper Grammer Masters. James Boyer
during the greater part of his reign held, first, the vicarage
of Enford, Wilts, and then that of Colne Engaine, the richest
in the Hospital’s gift.

But it would not be fair to confine this chapter to the after
life of Exhibitioners. The careers of the rest claim a word,
for the rest were always the backbone of the School. The
“ Mathemats ” were well provided for in ways which are else-
where explained. What of the ordinary Writing School boy
who left at about fifteen years of age ? Him too, as well as
the youths at the Universities, the Governors looked after as
long as they could. They apprenticed him to a trade ; they
worried his master if the boy was not properly treated ; they
summoned the boy to their presence if his conduct was com-
plained of. And it is a grievous pity that to-day, by the
falling away of the apprenticeship system, they have twice as
much money ear-marked for this purpose as they can dispose
of in any given year. Sir Martin Bowes would turn in his
grave if he knew it, for it was in his day (December 1556)
that it was “ agreed that the wardens of all the companies
within this citie shulde be sent for and by them a request be
made to their companies that so manye as wanted anye
apprentices that they wolde take of the biggest sorte of
children kept by the charitie of the citizens which are not
geuen (given) to their learnynge.” It is needless to add that
many of these supposed dullards who were appenticed to
City merchants brought fame and benefactions to their old
school in after life.

Again, the expansion of England gave our lads a chance
of a useful existence beyond the seas. As early as 1640
it was clearly necessary to put a check on the spirit of
adventure showing itself within the walls, for it was then
resolved “that there shal bee noe children sent to new
England out of this house but such as theire parents shall

AFTER SCHOOL

283

give consent for and discharge the house of them before
their Transportacon.” The great trading companies had
a special liking for our boys. The “ Guyney Company ”
expressed “a desire to take 3 of the children” in 1677 “to
place in their Factory Readers of a recently published
history of the Hudson’s Bay Company, of which the present
treasurer, Mr. Alderman Walter Vaughan Morgan, is, most
appropriately, a director, will remember that David Thomp-
son, the Company’s famous surveyor and astronomer at the
close of the eighteenth century, entered its service from
Christ’s Hospital. In 1698 a letter was read to the Gover-
nors from “ Stephen Gwyn and Richard Grice the two
Mathematicall boyes that were lately sent into the Czar of
Muscovy’s service, giving an acco‘ of their safe arrivall at
Archangell and of their being mightily well used there by
Mr Woolfe.” Again in 1721 came “the African Company”
with a similar request. They were willing “ to bind such
[children] as they shall take apprentices to the Company for
five years, whom they will send out to their settlements in
Affrica where they shall be furnished with Cloths and Dyett
during their Apprenticeship, and when they are out of their
time to be preferred according to their Merits.” To this also
the Governors saw no objection, provided that the boys and
their parents were willing. But the chief source of foreign
service for our boys came from the East India Company,
who were long the Hospital’s “tenants at a very low rate”
(Committee Book, October 3rd, 1690), at Leadenhall. The
first mention I have found occurs in 1668, when the Company
received the thanks of the Governors for having been
“ pleased to take off from the charge of this hospitall eight
children to be employed in their affaires beyonnd the seas,
and had att great charges clothed and provided necessaries
for the sd children’s voyage.” Nine years later it appears
that there was a hitch somewhere. The Company wanted
“ half a score children to be placed in their factory ” (August
7th, 1677), and the Writing Master was accordingly “desired
to take all possible care for the improvement of the said
children in their writeing and Cyphering.” In a few days

284 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Mr. Treasurer waited on the Board of Directors to say that
“neare half a score” were ready. But the Company had
meanwhile changed its mind, “ it haveing proved somewhat
inconvenient,” but “ did desire to be excused from acquaint-
ing them with the manner thereof.” At the same time the
Board offered to take six boys to go as clerks with ships’
captains and learn navigation. So began the connexion
between the “Mathemat” and the Indian Navy, to the great
advantage of both. Once more, in 1695, the Company
applied for boys “ to serve [it] as writers for the terme of 7
yeares, four of them to' be sent to Persia, and two of them to
Surratt, and the rest to Fort St. George, and that the Presi-
dent and Council have orders that at the expiration of that
terme in case they behave themselves well in the Company’s
service That they be admitted to the Degree of Factors
without giving any security besides their owne Bonds.”
Whereupon it was announced to the Company that “there
hath been 21 children pitcht upon” as being “accomplisht
with Writing and Arithmetick.” There would have been
more, the Governors added, but that “it is not consistent
with the Lawes of England to send any boyes out of the
land ” without their own and their parents’ consent.

Enough has been said to show that the Hospital has
always been anxious to do the best for its sons at home or
abroad, whether they were “ pregnant and apt to learninge ”
or whether their bent was for commerce. To-day, as of old,
they are to be found in every corner of the world, with the
love of the Religious, Royal, and Ancient Foundation fixed
deep in their hearts.

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BV THE REV. I). F. HEYWOOD

CHAPTER XVI.

REFORM

“ What harm, then, if in the heart of this noble city there should be left
one receptacle, where parents of rather more liberal views, but whose time-
straitened circumstances do not admit of affording their children that better
sort of education which they themselves, not without cost to their parents, have
received, may without cost send their sons?” — Charles Lamb.

IT will have been gathered from references in the foregoing
chapters that Christ’s Hospital has not been altogether as
other schools in respect of the machinery by which it was
administered ; but it will be well to devote a word or two to
saying what the machinery was, and to what extent it has
been altered. Dealing for the moment merely with the Consti-
tution as it existed prior to the Scheme of 1891, we observe
that the pivot of the whole system is the “ Governor,” and
we can take as a view-point in the middle of the school’s
career the year 1717, when the managing Committee drew
the attention of the Court to “ the great Increase of late of
Governors for this House whereby the Number far exceeds
what hath been heretofore usuall or accustomed.” The
Court at once acknowledged the seriousness of the situa-
tion by a decree, dated July 2nd, 1717, “that no person or
persons shall be nominated for a Governor of this House
untill after Midsumer next.” The elucidation of this text
involves the whole history of the management of the
Hospital, too long to give here, except in a very brief review ;
the reader will find an exhaustive record in the report of the
Charity Commissioners of 1837.

It was recorded at the outset that Edward VI. vested
the Hospital, along with the other similar foundations, in

285

286 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

the Mayor and Commonalty of the City of London, a large
body, bound to delegate its powers to a smaller one, if the
management was to be effective. This led to the scheme
embodied in “ the Ordinances and Rules for the Governors
of the Hospitalls in the Citie of London,” printed in 1557,
and probably by that time already in operation. In this
“ Order ” the Corporation arranged that sixty-six of its
number should be allocated to the management of these
Hospitals, of whom fourteen were to be aldermen, and of
the latter six were to be “ graye clokes ” (who had passed the
chair), and eight “ callabre.” Of the fifty-two commoners it
was ordered that four “be scriveners at the leaste.” Two
“ graye clokes ” were given the offices of comptroller-general
and surveyor-general to the four Hospitals together, and the
remaining twelve aldermen were distributed, three to each
Hospital, so that each institution had a “ graye cloke ” as
president, with thirteen commoners, of whom one was to be
Treasurer, and, apparently, one must be able to write. The
“ Order ” added certain regulations for filling vacancies, in
case any of the Governors “ do dye within the year (as God
defend).” They were to serve for two years, and elections
were to take place on St. Matthew’s Day at a “ general court.”
With certain slight exceptions this system prevailed till
1564, “ Governors ” being nominated without regard to any
contributions made by them to the funds of the Hospital.
During the century that followed up to 1666 there was a
quiet but gradual alteration of the process of electing and
maintaining the governing body. General Courts ceased to
be held for this express purpose, though the St. Matthew’s
Day ceremony of handing over lists of all the Governors of
the various Hospitals to the Lord Mayor for safe keeping
among the civic archives remains to this day. But they did
not keep with anything like regularity to the numbers laid
down in the “Order” of 1557, and proposals for filling
vacancies or appointing additional Governors were made as
opportunity arose. It is merely recorded on the minutes of
the ordinary court-meetings that such and such gentlemen
received their charge or had “ green staves ” sent to them.

REFORM

287

In 1666 the several Treasurers met and agreed that hence-
forward each Hospital should choose its own Governors, and,
though aldermen and common councilmen still preponderated,
it became the custom to elect gentlemen and send them the
green staff of office out of regard to their personal fitness
for the work. In this way Flamsteed, the astronomer-royal,
Samuel Pepys, Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Jonas Moore, Surveyor-
General of Ordnance, and other prominent persons became
members of the Court and were selected by the Court to serve
on committees ; indeed, after a while the committees began
to choose the Governors on behalf of the Court, to which
the names were formally submitted. But in 1699 the Cor-
poration of the City woke up to the fact that the management
of Christ’s Hospital was slipping out of their hands, and
therefore directed the Town Clerk to write to the Governors
a letter of protest. It stated that, instead of the Governors’
names being submitted to the Corporation for approval, “ a
liberty appears to have been for many years exercised of
persons being (without distinction) elected, admitted to, and
continued in that office, in the name indeed, but wholly with-
out the privity, much less confirmation, of the said court, not
only to the raising the number of the said persons to a
degree greatly exceeding what either the said ancient con-
stitution, or the present service of the hospital requires, but
to the exposing the same to the worst of consequences
attending the remissness, improvidence, and tumultuousness
of management, by which the said hospital has been reduced
to the state of indigence, debt and disorder under which it
at this day languishes.” A sentence of such portentous
length is a not uncommon accompaniment of a weak case.
Any change that had come over the government of the
Hospital had done so under the very eyes of the Corporation.
A committee hardly ever met, much less a Court, at which
an Alderman and some commoners were not present. Be-
sides it is clear from the records that the Corporation very
frequently interfered in the affairs of the Royal Hospitals.
It sealed their documents ; it refused or accepted their
Governors ; it scrutinised their finances ; it summoned whom

288 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

it would to attend before it. No one thought of resisting
its will till the year in which the letter just quoted was
written, when the Governors of Christ’s Hospital first
accepted but afterwards declined a vice-president, whom
the Court of Aldermen had appointed owing to the infirmity
of the then President, who was a member of their own body,
Sir John Moore, the generous builder of the Writing School.

Further, the Royal Hospitals could make the obvious
answer that the acceptance by the City of the Governors’
lists each St. Matthew’s Day was tantamount to an expres-
sion of the City’s assent to the names there mentioned.
Anyhow, after a dispute lasting over many 'months, the
Court of Aldermen came to the conclusion that each Hospital
might elect its own Governors, subject to the usual presenta-
tion of the lists each St. Matthew’s Day; and so matters
remained till 1778, when the civic authorities once more
began to agitate. They appointed a special committee ; they
refused the seal to any lease or document not examined
by that committee ; when Christ’s Hospital sent in its
nomination of a clergyman to the benefice of Enford to be
sealed, they refused the nomination and tried to appoint a
nominee of their own. So the Presidents and the Treasurers
of the Royal Hospitals had to take counsel together, and
the result was a petition to the Lord Chancellor as visitor.
It set forth that the increase of their governing bodies by the
nomination of “ noblemen & gentlemen & others residing
elsewhere \i.e. outside the City], of character and ability, and
likely to become benefactors, was exceedingly advantageous”;
that there were then 230 leases of property duly drawn out
and waiting to be sealed at the Guildhall ; and that the Court
of Common Council was unfitted to replace the administration
of the Hospital by Life-Governors because it was “so numerous
and fluctuating a body that if they should be Governors the
greatest inconvenience would ensue.”

So we come to the Act of Parliament (22 Geo. iii. 1782,
cap. 77) which embodied certain articles of agreement arrived
at between the City and the Governors of the Royal Hospitals.
In this there were four provisions: (1) for the presentation

REFORM

289

of the lists to the Lord Mayor every September 21st, as
heretofore ; (2) that for any purposes of litigation at law or
in equity, etc., the governing body of each hospital, while
bearing the costs of its own actions, might assume the title
of “ the mayor and commonalty as governors ” of each
hospital ; (3) that the seal of the hospitals should be kept
at the office of the City Chamberlain as heretofore, where
documents should be sealed ; (4) that the Court of Common
Council should yearly select, at the first meeting after St.
Thomas’s Day, forty-eight of its members as Governors of
the Royal Hospitals, assigning twelve to each.

If it may be permitted to a citizen living under the pro-
tection of the Corporation to criticise its action, my own
impression is that the City had rather forgotten what it was
that gave it its original privileges. The early history of
Christ’s Hospital, like that of the Grey Friars, is a record
of the “ devotio civium.” The citizens were generous donors
to the funds, and only received their due share of authority.
But in the eighteeenth century all that was forgotten. True, it
is not clear that many of the then existing Governors, to whose
numbers the Corporation objected, were also benefactors.
But during the eighteenth century there had been many
instances of the nomination as Governors of donors of £200,
£500, and other sums. The Commissioners of 1837 were
perfectly justified in their mild insinuation, that in the City’s
choice of its forty-eight ex officio representatives on these
governing bodies “ no indication has been given of any desire
to consult the advantage of the institutions at any personal
sacrifice.” Nor is it beside the point to add that at the
present moment only two of the Aldermen and none of the
Common Council Governors have given qualifying donations.
They are content with their ex officio position on the govern-
ing body.

Indeed, nothing is stranger than the attack which has been
made on the Donation Governor system by the various
commissions of inquiry from 1837 onwards. The latter
gentlemen were appalled to think that on the governing
body there were then 313 “ individuals who have attained
u

29o ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

the station they occupy, simply by their ability to spare
^400.” Assuming the Commissioners’ knowledge that in
each case the money could be “spared,” one wonders that
it did not occur to them that gentlemen with that ability,
and still less gentlemen ready to exercise it, are not to be
found at the corner of every street ; nor that their parental
interest in the children they nominated was in itself a good
start in life for an otherwise friendless boy. What they
resented was that between 1800 and 1837, when they com-
pleted their report, no less than 466 gentlemen qualified
themselves for election in this way, and that many of them
had lived long enough to receive more than “their money’s
worth” in the way of presentations of children to enjoy
the benefits of the foundation, as though their donation
was prompted by the notion that they had discovered a
“soft thing” in investments. The fact that as a body they
were too large to form an effective administration was easily
met by the selection from among them of the Council of
Almoners, and, when the whole body had at times to decide
on questions of school-government, it is clear that its decision
was guided, if not by exact knowledge, at any rate by
interest in the well-being of the proteges whom each Governor
had placed in the school.

The whole question would not be worth arguing, if fifty
years later the views of the 1837-8 investigators had not
been taken up and pushed to a baleful conclusion by the
Charity Commissioners in the Scheme which they promul-
gated in 1885 and put into execution in 1891. That Scheme
was purely and simply an attack, not on the teaching, which
has altered little, nor on the staff, which has changed even
less, nor on the diet, which has passed through a normal
development, but on the Donation Governor. It attacked
him in two vital particulars, which may be briefly dealt with
separately. First, he had been up to that time the pivot
of the administration. His donation of ^500 (for that is
the amount which had long taken the place of the £400
before referred to) had entitled him to a seat on the Court,
and the Court selected the Council of Almoners. Against

REFORM

291

this Council no charges of maladministration were made.
They were not by profession educational experts committed
to educational doctrines, which may be more briefly expressed
as “fads.” But they had a lively interest in the school,
prompted in some cases by gratitude for mercies received, and
in most cases by the possibility of mercies which they could
themselves confer. The new scheme disposed of their active
interest with a stroke of the pen by its provision for the future
election of the Council of Almoners. Henceforth this body
consists of forty-three members, of whom two, the President
and the Lord Mayor for the time being, are members ex officio ,
and the rest are nominated on the following system : twenty
by the “old” Governors (unless the “old” Governors fall
below two hundred in number, when their representation
will be only at the rate of one for every ten); six by the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City ; six by the London
School Board; one by the Education Office; one by the
Admiralty ; two each by the Universities of Oxford, Cam-
bridge, and London ; and one by the Royal Society. It
would be absurd as well as ungracious to say a word against
the fitness of the gentlemen who represent these various
bodies ; their names carry their own commendation with
them. But inasmuch as they neither “ present ” children, nor
nominate them for entrance into the competitive examina-
tions, they unquestionably lack that direct interest in the
wellbeing of their young charges which is felt by all Donation
Governors. At the same time the Donation Governors, if
they maintain their numbers, are always liable to be outvoted
on the Council ; and, if they do not maintain their present
numbers, their influence can only get smaller and smaller.

Nor is it easy to exonerate the Charity Commissioners
from a deliberate attempt, by their scheme as it at first
prevailed, to crush the Donation Governor out of existence
altogether ; which brings us to the second point in which
they attacked him. He had not only been the pivot of
administration, but also the channel by which entrance to
the benefits of the Foundation was generally to be obtained.
Their method of securing this was threefold, and equally

292 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

effective in each case : (i.) they reduced his rights of presenta-
tion to a minimum ; (ii.) they introduced a system of entrance
by competition among pupils of primary and secondary
schools, so that the sharpest children take the place by force,
and the weak ones, who most need its help, go to the wall ;
(iii.) they ordained that the parents or guardians might, if the
Council of Almoners think fit, (which they generally do),
be called upon to pay a sum varying from £10 to £ 20
a year for a child’s education. The last two have effectually
changed Christ’s Hospital from an ancient and honourable
charity, and “a passing dede of pittie,” into a semi-commercial
institution, to which a boy claims entrance by his wits and in
which he remains by virtue of a payment, which is neverthe-
less too small to deserve the name. Therefore, though in
1896 the Charity Commissioners saw the error of their ways
and restored to the Donation Governor a modicum of his
former rights of presentation, they cannot be surprised, they
may even be secretly contented, that the elimination of any
charitable basis from the present constitution has effectually
reduced the ancient flood of “donations” to a hardly per-
ceptible trickle.

So much for “reform” as it has affected the Governing
Body. Public attention has been more directed to the
question of the proper site for the Hospital. Is it or is it not
a good thing to leave it where it is ? The matter apparently
did not lie within the reference of the Commissioners of
1837, but it was considered by the inquiry of 1863, when
Mr. Hare was bidden to see “ whether any or what improve-
ments might be made in the management.” Mr. Hare,
however, was soon elbowed out by the “ Schools Inquiry
Commissioners” of 1864, a body whose names carry the
greatest possible weight, and of which the Archbishop of
Canterbury (Dr. Temple) is the only surviving member.
Their official investigator, Mr. Fearon, visited the Hospital in
the early months of 1866 and made a masterly report of
what he saw, though his suggestions for the future use of the
foundation were somewhat wild and romantic. But his
masters, the Commissioners, took little notice of Mr. Fearon’s

REFORM

293

schemes. They recommended that the School at Hertford
should be given up, and the money used to found day-schools
in London ; but they were also of opinion that Christ’s
Hospital, London, should “be retained on its present site.”
Still nothing was done as the result either of this or the
subsequent Endowed Schools Commission, except that every-
one connected with the Hospital felt a growing sense of
helplessness and insecurity.

At last came the definite provision of the Charity Com-
missioners in their scheme of 1891 for the abandonment of the
Newgate Street site, in which they were no doubt influenced
by the verdict of a special Royal Commission to inquire into
the affairs of the Hospital at a time of exceptional trouble in
1877. These latter, who included Dean Liddell, Mr. W. E.
Forster, and Mr. John Walter of The Times, gave it as their
opinion that “ for a thorough reform in the management and
discipline of Christ’s Hospital ” its “ removal from London is
indispensable.” Whether Sir Henry Longley and his
colleagues were influenced by this verdict or not, the 63rd
clause of their scheme ordained that the Hospital Schools
(by which they mean a boarding school for boys and a
boarding school for girls) “ shall be maintained within a
convenient distance from the City of London ” ; and the
result has been the selection in 1892 of a site in Sussex,
whose postal address will be “West Horsham.” Its suit-
ability or otherwise is not before us here, but is “on the knees
of the gods ” ; it must suffice to say that those who know
most about it have the greatest confidence in it. What is
before us is the wisdom or unwisdom of removal at all.

This policy of removal can be defended on various grounds.
There is the valuable nature of the present site, though, when
it is at last sold, it is doubtful whether much of the price
obtained will survive after the purchase of a new site, the
maintenance of it for seven or eight years, the erection on it
of large buildings, and the promotion of a bill in Parliament
to facilitate the sale of the old site. Again, there is the
question of health. It is probable that a country life will
improve the physique and stamina of the “ Blues ” ; it can

294 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

hardly give them greater immunity from epidemics than the
comparative freedom they have long had at Newgate Street,
while the decision to take the junior school to West Horsham
only increases the probability of trouble in this direction.
They will have advantages in the matter of games, such as
Newgate Street can never give them, in spite of the generous
action of the present Treasurer in providing a suburban
ground. They will find in the coming regime of house-
masters a system infinitely preferable to the ward-life, which,
under the best of Wardens and the most efficient of matrons,
could never be worthy of a public school. There will also
be at Horsham an end to the unsettling influence of half-
holidays and leave-days, when the great majority of the boys
have turned out twice a week to visit their friends, and a term
at Horsham will mean thirteen weeks of concentration and
devotion to the united interests of one large community.
But, looking a little further ahead, and admitting certain
considerations to which Charity Commissioners are strangers,
those who are better acquainted with the needs of “ Blues ”
will see one matter in which the majority of them are bound
to be losers. That majority looks for its future to employment
in the City. Merchants and commercial concerns of all sorts
have long made a practice of sending round to Newgate
Street when there is a vacancy on their staff, and at most
times the demand for “ Blues ” is greater than the supply
of boys ready to leave. But these employers cannot be
expected to send, under similar circumstances, to Horsham,
and if the great majority are thus condemned to lose the
many chances of a good start in life which they have hitherto
enjoyed, no economic, educational, or sanitary advantages
can compensate Christ’s Hospital for its enforced departure
from its ancient abode.

But, putting on one side the rather fatal changes in the site
of the school and in the status of the Governor, and passing
by those “ castles in Spain,” the day-schools for boys and
girls, of which the 1891 scheme speaks, “ Blues” acknowledge
one or two particulars in which that scheme has proved
better than their fears. The competition system has not

Mb-

THE TREASURER’S HOUSE AND GARDEN

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH LENT BY THE LONDON AND MIDDLESEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

REFORM

295

meant the influx of an undesirable or unpleasant element
into the personnel of the School. The new-comers have
received their training and formed their habits amid other
surroundings; but this has not prevented their adapting them-
selves to the often strange ways of Christ’s Hospital and
imbibing some of its spirit. Oddly enough, though they
have entered through the gateway of a stiff competition,
they have not up to the present shown themselves to be
much more doughty combatants in the scholarship tourney
than those who were “ presented ” in the old days on the
merits of their particular case. It may be added that the
competition system has made it clear again &.nd again that
the opportunity offered to a sharp Board -School boy at
Christ’s Hospital is not such as his parents care to grasp.
The sharp boy of thirteen or fourteen is a potential bread-
winner, and there have been scores of cases in which the hope
of a University education does not weigh much against the
present worth of seven-and-sixpence a week.

Again, in its regulations for the status and functions of the
Head Master, the scheme has undoubtedly worked a benefi-
cent if silent revolution. It has been shown in preceding
chapters that the annals of Christ’s Hospital cannot be
arranged in periods christened with the names of successive
Head Masters. If any office would answer such a purpose,
it is that of the Treasurer, but his functions went far beyond
the mere direction of school routine. The smallest details
were in the hands of the committees or the Council of
Almoners, bodies which will not serve for chapter-headings,
as they never died. It has also been hinted that the last
half-century has witnessed the gradual evolution of the
Head Master, quite independently of the Charity Com-
missioners. What the impetuosity of Dr. Jacob began, the
natural aptitude of the present Master of Marlborough
developed, and the cool judgment and long experience of
the Rev. Richard Lee has continued. But the Scheme
legalised his authority beyond a doubt. Clause 76 says that
the “ Council of Almoners shall prescribe the general subjects
of instruction,” their “relative prominence and value,” and

296 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

the arrangements for terms and holidays. They are to make
their proper arrangements for salaries and for “ otherwise
furthering the current objects and the efficiency” of the
School. But in the last matter they are to give the Head
Master every opportunity to express his views, and he may
present his own proposals “ for making or altering regula-
tions concerning any matter within the province of the
Council of Almoners” (Clause 77). Under these conditions
the Head Master has under his absolute control “ the choice
of books, the method of teaching, the arrangement of classes
and school hours, and generally the whole internal organisa-
tion, management, and discipline.” Thus in the ordinary
acceptation of the words Mr. Lee is the first Head Master
of Christ’s Hospital. It will be for some future historian
of the House to chronicle the results of this beginning as
they will appear in the transplanted foundation. It says
much for him and his predecessor and much for the last two
Treasurers, Mr. J. D. Allcroft and Mr. Alderman Walter
Vaughan Morgan, that the difficulties of the Head Master’s
position up to 1891 have always been more apparent to him
than to the school at large or even to his colleagues on the
staff. Anyhow, Christ’s Hospital has turned its back for
good on the state of things described by the 1837 Com-
missioners, who found that “ all the masters, as well classical
as mathematical, consider themselves at liberty to introduce
for the use of their classes such books as they deem best
fitted for their purpose."

One practical result, of considerable importance to the
after life of “ Blues,” is already in a fair way of accomplish-
ment. Christ’s Hospital is blessed with a good Exhibition
Fund, the accumulated gifts of many generations of bene-
factors from Lady Ramsey onwards. But it has been the
unvarying custom that only the boys should benefit by it,
and only those boys who win scholarships or exhibitions
at an Oxford or a Cambridge college. The bund will
shortly be enlarged by the falling in of leases, and arrange-
ments are being made to expand its usefulness. There is no
reason why the girls should be deprived of its benefits , still

REFORM

297

less need it be restricted to those who are proceeding to the
Universities. Indeed, as the Universities are to most of our
exhibitioners merely an avenue to the scholastic profession,
which is considerably overcrowded already, it is well to en-
courage “ Blues ” to enter on other careers and to help them
by an exhibition to bear part of the initial expense. A
beginning has been made in the case of a Grecian who
recently won a Woolwich cadetship from the School. He
was awarded a Hospital exhibition, which he held at Wool-
wich. It is a precedent which will go far, and it is the out-
come of the liberty granted by the Scheme to the Head
Master to make proposals to the Council of Almoners.

Such, then, is the record of the sundry parts and the
varied functions of this ancient Foundation. Such has
been its appearance in the life of London and its work
in the nurture of sons and daughters. If any not belonging
to the little world of Christ’s Hospital should be at the
pains to read the story, they will not wonder that to an
ordinary and representative “ Blue ” there is something
sacrosanct about the time - honoured House in Newgate
Street, or that, when he says his

fir] Kivet Kafidpivav,

he speaks from a sense of the good that the School has
done and still might do where it is, and constituted as it
was till ten years ago. It is no part of my purpose to
appeal to a fanatical conservatism, such as many “ Old
Blues” maintain in regard to the monstrous iniquity of
the profane hands that have been laid on the place and
its genius. These pages have, I hope, been sufficiently
honest to show that in the past there have been eccentricities
of management and abuses that were almost normal. The
oft - mentioned matter of the powerlessness of the chief
educational authority is one such case, and it seems hard
to believe that the Rev. G. C. Bell was the first Head
Master who, when he visited a colleague’s classroom, ran
no danger of being bowed out or even less ceremoniously

298 ANNALS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

disposed of. That, at any rate, was already remedied before
the new Scheme came into operation.

But this gradual and voluntary putting of wrongs to right
can be seen equally clearly in a matter which has not
appeared so frequently upon these pages, namely, the
medical attention paid to the children of the School. For
nearly thirty years they have been under the watchful
care of a resident physician, whose unceasing skill and
vigilance they appreciate little till they see it in retrospect.
But it is necessary to fall back into the eighteenth century
to estimate the way by which they have been led to their
comparative immunity from disease, let alone fatal disease.
In 1737 and the following years the medical treatment
of the children was placed in the hands of Sir Hans Sloane
and other doctors, in order that its obvious deficiencies
might be remedied. In the first place it was needful to
prevent the entry into the rough life of the place of
children physically unfit to stand it. There was, of course,
a medical examination preliminary to admission, but this
was no bar to the entrance of weaklings, who were without
difficulty “changed” for stronger children whom the doctor
had passed. So a Committee of 1739 gave orders that
the Surgeon and the Apothecary should “ not only signe
a Note of such Examination but tye a string about their
Necks with a Seal of Wax affixed at the End thereof, which
the children are to wear till they are taken into this Hospital
or sent into the Country.” True, this was not to be a
permanent expedient, but it will serve to mark a difference
between then and now. Again, whether they needed it
or not, the children were then under an Apothecary who was
determined to show a large expenditure on medicine.
His account from Michaelmas to Christmas, 1740, was
^330, and “on those days between the Physicians usual
days of visiting the sick wards [he] has taken upon him
the ordering and directing all sorts of medicines to as
many of the children as he thought fit.” Once more,
when sickness did come, the Hospital’s state of unprepared-
ness to meet it can best be stated in terms of two of the

REFORM

299

Medical Committee’s suggestions : one, that in the sick
ward “ the Boys and Girls be kept separate ” ; the other,
“that the Children in ffevers and all infectious distempers
have each a separate bed ” !

It is hardly remarkable that “ Blues ” and Governors
who have watched the silent improvements of recent years
in this and other respects should think it right to claim
that the Hospital might have been trusted to continue
the process. The pity is that, failing to have their own
way, they are now affecting to deny that Christ’s Hospital
is Christ’s Hospital any longer, and that this attitude may
tend to produce a cleavage between past and future
members of the House. But those who have watched its
life most closely since the reform stage set in, while not
shutting their eyes to the organic changes which have
come over the School, can still subscribe to the famous
words of the “Schools Inquiry Commissioners.” “Christ’s
Hospital,” they said, “ is a thing without a parallel in the
country and sui generis. It is a grand relic of the mediaeval
spirit, a monument of the profuse munificence of that spirit
and of that constant stream of individual beneficence which
is so often found to flow round institutions of that character.
It has kept its main features, its traditions, its antique
ceremonies, almost unchanged for a period of upwards of
three centuries.” This witness is true, and, if the past
and the future of Christ’s Hospital loyalty will join hands,
may still be true. At any rate, it is the object of this
imperfect story of our House that those who loved it
under the old Scheme may be content to continue their
lovingkindness to it under the new, and that the “ Blue ”
who enters under modern conditions may remember that
he has a goodly heritage. So let both unite with full
assurance in the time-honoured prayer : —

The Religious, Royal, and Ancient Foundation
of Christ’s Hospital — May those prosper who love

IT, AND MAY GOD INCREASE THEIR NUMBER.

NOTE

THE BUILDINGS BEFORE THE FIRE

IN the month of September, 1901, when this volume was already
in type, an ancient plan (or copy of a plan) of the Hospital was
discovered in the course of a clearance in the offices of the architect.
It deals with ground-floor buildings only, and therefore does not
settle the position of dormitories or the use to which Whittington’s
Library was put, nor does it contradict in any important particular
the statements made in chapter iv. Still, its interest is sufficient to
warrant a special note.

It shows that an otherwise crowded site had five open spaces of
various sizes, viz. : — the Ditch, the Church-yard, the Garden, the
“Gray Fryers,” and “Mr Treasurer’s Garden.” The largest are the
two on the north, the “Towne Ditch” and the “Church-yard”
(cf. p. 62), which, together with the “Long Walke” between them,
occupied about a third of the property. There is an entrance for
one tenant on the north side of the Ditch, where one would have
expected more. On the south of the Ditch and of the Church-yard
are two bastions of the City Wall (cf. p. 47), of which the one by
the Treasurer’s House is used as a “Washhouse.” Between the
Treasurer’s House and the Upper Church there is a congeries of
small buildings. At the corner where “Sixes’” matron now has
her parlour was the “ Writeing School ” associated with the name of
Lady Ramsey. Between the Treasurer’s House and the “ Compting
House” there was a passage, represented to-day by the path the
present Treasurer treads from the • Counting House to his back
entrance. Close to the Counting House are the “ Kitchine ” and
“Parler" of Mr. Parrey, the Clerk, and on the other side of it the
“Schoole Mr“ House,” while the southern half of the present
Treasurer’s Garden is occupied by the gardens and houses of
various tenants.

300

GROUND-PLAN AT THE PRESENT TIME

NOTE

301

The “ Garden Plott ” is ornamented with a tree, which may be
taken to imply that something more than grass grew on it, and we
are able by means of the plan to get a directory of the cloisters.
Entering at the Christ Church Lodge, the first door to the right
in the East Cloister is that of Jonathan Pickes, the Writing Master
(cf. p. 147). He and “ Mr Rochdale,” who was allowed the use
of a coal-cellar next door in 1654, take up the part now represented
by the staircase of Wards I.— III. Then comes the Grammar School,
occupying the site of the present Museum and Library, while the
corner by “Sixes’” lavatory is given to “Mr Helm’s parler” (i.e.
Shadrach Helmes, the Upper Grammar Master).

The ground floor of the North Cloister under Whittington’s
Library is divided between the “ Maidens Schoole ” and the
“Cole-house,” and behind these to the north are the “Well-yard”
(cf. p. 49), the “ Ducke-yard,” the “ Sea-Cole-house,” and the
“ Shooe-makers-yard.”

The West Cloister, being under the Hall, uses its ground floor for
the “Children’s Buttery” and the “ Cheesehouse,” and for Porters’
and Shoemakers’ rooms.

The “Giffs” turns out to be less aristocratic than one hoped.
The Matron’s House, the only habitation in it, probably included
part of the present Lodge, and may have communicated with a
Girls’ ward on the first floor.

At the west end of the “Giffs” there is another Lodge, leading
to “The Gray Fryers.” The Hall-Play is occupied, as stated on
pages 58, 59, with many and various buildings. For example, the
“Mr Offley” mentioned on page 58 turns out to have a good
frontage on to “The Gray Fryers.” But the most notable thing
in this part of the plan is its inclusion of “ Mr Aldworths Schoole,”
the foundation for forty poor boys, which is described on page 102,
and which was opened in 1660. The plan must thus be assigned
to some year between 1660 and the Great Fire, unless it was drawn
up in accordance with the precept from Guildhall mentioned on
page 2x1.

APPENDICES

A. PRESIDENTS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Note. — The first four held the title of Surveyor General
and had power over all the Royal Hospitals

1553 Sir George Barnes.
1556 Sir Martin Bowes.
1556 Sir Andrew Judd.
1559 Sir Thomas Oflley.

1563 Sir Thomas White.

1582 Sir Thomas Ramsey.

1590 Sir Wolstan Dixie.

1593 Sir Richard Martin.

1602 Sir Stephen Slaney.

1608 Sir Humphrey Weld.

1610 Sir William Craven.

1618 Sir John Leman.

1632 Sir Martin Lumley.

1634 Sir Hugh Hammersley.

1 636 Sir Christopher Clitherowe.
1641 Sir Richard Gurney.

1643 Sir John Cordall.

1648 Sir John Gayer.

1649 Sir John Wollaston.

1658 Sir Thomas Vyner.

1660 Sir Thomas Atkins.

1661 John Fowke.

1662 Sir John Frederick.

1684 Sir John Moore.

1702 Sir Francis Child.

1712 Sir Richard Hoare.

1718 Sir Robert Child.

1721 Robert Heysham.

1722 Sir Francis Forbes.

1727 Sir George Merttins.

Francis Child.

1740 Sir John Barnard.

1758 Sir Robert Ladbroke.

1773 Sir Henry Bankes.

1774 Robert Alsop.

1785 Richard Clarke. [Bart.
1798 Sir John William Anderson,
1813 Sir William Curtis, Bart.
1829 William Thompson.

1854 H. R. H. The Duke of
Cambridge, k.g., & c.

302

APPENDICES

303

B. TREASURERS OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

1552 Sir Thomas Roe.
1552 Richard Grafton.
1557 Richard Buckland.
1559 Robert Cage.

1561 John Jackson.

1574 Thomas Hall.

1583 William Norton.
1594 Robert Cogan.
1614 William Dale.

Richard Heath.
1624 John Harper.

1632 John Hawes.

1638 John Babington.
1652 Richard Glyd.

1662 William Gibbon.
1679 Charles Doyly.
1683 Nathaniel Hawes.
1699 Robert Oxwick.

C. HEAD, OR UPPER

1 553 John Robynson.

1564 Ralph Waddington.

1612 Thomas Hayne.

1630 Thomas Walters.

1652 George Perkins.

1662 Shadrach Helmes.

1678 James Mansfield.

1682 The Rev. Samuel Mount-
fort.

1719 The Rev. Matthew Audley.
1725 The Rev. Peter Selby.

1738 The Rev. Seawell Heath-
erly.

1700 Francis Brerewood.

1707 Thomas Lockington.

1716 Sir George Merttins.

1727 Richard Cheeke.

1734 Robert Gay.

1737 Philip Scarth.

1758 Daniel Webb.

1770 Thomas Burfoot.

1785 William Gill.

1798 James Palmer.

1824 Thomas Poynder.

1835 Richard Hotham Pigeon.
1847 William Gilpin.

1867 William Foster White.
1873 John Derby Allcroft.

1891 Walter Vaughan Morgan,
Alderman.

GRAMMAR MASTERS

1753 The Rev. James Townley.
1760 The Rev. Peter Whalley.
1776 The Rev. James Boyer.
1799 The Rev. A. W. Trollope,

D.D.

1827 The Rev. John Green-
wood, D.D.

1836 The Rev. Edward Rice, d.d.
1853 The Rev. George Andrew
Jacob, d.d.

1868 The Rev. George Charles
Bell.

1876 The Rev. Richard Lee.

304

APPENDICES

D. CLERKS TO THE GOVERNORS

1552 John Watson.

1562 James Peele.

1586 Richard Wilson.

1593 Lawrence Couchman.
1 5 97 John Banister.

1623 Thomas Stephenson.
1653 William Parvey
1704 George Yeo
1 71 1 William Brockett

1746 John Yeo.

1749 John Bowden.

1760 Joseph Eyre.

1790 Richard Corp.

1817 Thomas Wilby.

1836 George Trollope.

1864 Matthias S. S. Dip^all.
1889 Richard Lee Framre.

INDEX

Addresses, Queen Victoria, 204; Queen
Mary, 204 ; George I, 205 ; George
II, 205 ; George III, 205
Admiralty, apprentices’ premiums
granted by, 104

— badge worn by boys nominated by,
I32-3

Advowsons in gift of C.H., 277
“African Company,” application for
apprentices, 283

Albert Edward, Prince of Wales,
foundation stone at Horsham laid
by, 63

Aldermen, right of presentation, 43
Aldworth, Richard, 102-3, 136-7, 302.

bequest, 102-3

Allcroft, J. D., Treasurer, 296, 303
Allhallows, Lombard Street, boys
attend service at, 231
Allyn, Dr., Grey Friars visited by, 7
Almoners, Council of, 296-1. See also
Governors

Amicable Society of Blues, 62
Andrews, Sir Matthew, 144

— — his scheme for Mathematical
School, 123-5

Anne, Queen, at Guildhall, 205
Apartments for masters and clerks, 49,
52

Apothecary, 92, 298
Apprentices, 130, 13 1, 241, 282-4

— bound only to large ships, 101,
126-8

— premiums, 104, 130-1

— applications from captains for, 122,
127

— complaints of shipmasters against,
122-3

— few high naval appointments taken
by, 126

— join Commanders without consent
of Treasurer, 127

Architect’s offices, 49

Archives saved from Great Fire, 210

Arris, Edward, bequest, 224
Astronomical observations, R.M.S.,
IIO

Athletics, 265

Audley, Edward, elopes from C.H., 248

— Rev. Matthew, Upper Grammar
Master, 86, 87, 277, 303

Aungier, Major, 114, 116, 120
Austin, John, shop in Grey Friars, 59
Aylmer, John, Bp. of London, 220

Babington, John, Treasurer, 303

funeral, 228

bequest 230

Bacon, Josiah, bequest, 61
his wards, 63

— Roger, 5-6

Badges, worn by boys, 101, 103,132-3

— sale of, 261, 263
Bakehouse of the Franciscans, 58

— destroyed in Great Fire, 210
Balance-sheet, annual, 42
Ballthroppe, Robert, “ chirurgione ” of

C.H., 24

Bancks, John, bequest, 236
“Bands” (neck-bands), their origin,
186

Bannister, FI., porter, 245
Barber at Hertford school, 165
Barne, Mr., Aid., 14
Barnes, Sir George, President, 302

— Joshua, 271

his Spital Psalm, 226

— Thomas, a benefactor, 136, 155, 1 93
bequest, 155, 193

portrait, 1 93

— Thomas, editor of The Times , 92
Barrett, John, Music Master, 143-4
Barrington, Shute, donation, 62
Barrow, Isaac, Spital Preacher, 222-3
Bartholomew Fair, 254-5

Bartlett, Thomas, Aid., Governor, 23
Bastion of the City Wall, 300
Baths, 251

3°S

306

INDEX

Batty, Mr., Reading Master, 155
Beadles, 25, 27-8, 257

— profits of tuck-shop divided be-
tween, 181

— duties of, 235-6, 244-9, 262, 263

— re-elected on St. Matthew’s day,
236

— boys birched by, 259
Beaumont, Dr., Master of Peterhouse,

269, 278

Beckford, Sir Thomas, 133
Beer supplied at C.H., 174, 244-5

— sold by porters, 245-6

Bell, Rev. G. C., Head Master, 95, 98,
277. 295. 297-8, 3°3
Bell rung at closing time, 251
Benefactors, right of presentation, 43
Benefices, masters appointed to, 277,
282

— non-residence, 281
Benne, Wm., under-butler, 24
Bennett, Mr., tuck-shop kept by, 180
Bentley, Richard, Master of Trinity

College, 274

— • — his letter to the Governors, 275-6
Berden, Feilde appointed curate of, 89
Berkeley, Lord, 149
Betts, Mr., curate of Christ Church,
202

Beza’s Latin Testament, 125
Bible used as a reading book, 157-8
Billingsley, Samuel, 272, 276
Binfield, Henry, Tripos honours first
gained by, 85
Birch, use of, 259
Blackman Street, Bow, 230
Blackwell Hall the property of C.H.,
187

Bletchingley, 230
Blow Bladder Street, 260
"Blues,” old, appointed as masters,
276. See also Boys
Blundell, John, Aid., Governor, 22

— Peter, 29

bequest, 214

Bonfires in C.H., 254

Books, used by the children, 75, 77-8

by Grecians, 96

by Mathematical School, 125,

127, 129

by Music School, 138

by Reading School, 158

— ordered through Treasurer, 86

— prepared by Peter Selby, 87-8

by Sir Jonas Moore, 109

Bounds, boys to keep within, 247-8

— punishment for disobedience, 262-3
Bowden, John, clerk to the Governors,

304

Bowerman, Mrs. Sarah, bequest, 194-5

Bowes, Sir Martin, President, 14, 22,
29, 282, 302
Bowling Alley, 245-6
Boyer, Rev. James, Head Master, 27,
54, 88-9, 92, 303

his success, 89-90

boys from Hertford sent to, 90-2

resignation, 92, 93

vicar of Colne Engaine, 282

— John, Clerk of the Coopers’ Com-
pany, 8S

Boys, mortality among, 28

— attend burials, 57

— number sent to University, 98

— lead the train-bands through the
City, 99

— number of, 27, 37, 157, 164, 165,
211

— more accommodation required, 54-5

— scantily clad, 183

— punished for wearing private clothes,
1S4

— attendance at church, 191-203

— at civic ceremonies, 204-6

— elope, 247-9

— names called each night, 251, 262

— behaviour of, 74, 257-8

— medical treatment, 298-9
Bread made at Bridewell, 174
Breeches, first worn, 188
Brewer, Thomas, music master, 14 1
Brewhouse of the Franciscans, 58
Brewster, Edward, books presented by,

125

Bridewell, 257

— children committed to, 29
taught a trade at, 170

— bread made at, 174

— idle persons committed to, 235, 244
Brockett, Wm., clerk to the Governors,

304

Brookes, Rev. G. J., Mathematical
Master, 129

Brothers Preachers. See Dominicans
Brown, Dr. Plaig, 95, 271
Brown, Henry, “ chirurgione,” 24
Browne, John, Aid., governor, 22
bequest, 209

— Richard, Music Master, 142, 143,
144, 227

— Robart, 136

— Robert, Writing Master, 146
Broxbourne. See Hoddesddn
Bryckett, Thomas, first vicar of Christ

Church, 21-2, 192
Buckle, Canon, 94, 128, 157-8
Buckle worn by Travers’ boys, 132
Buescum, Nicholas Van, a "pynne
maker,” 17 1

Building fund, started in 1803, 62-3

INDEX

307

“ Bull Inn,” Ware, 167

Burchard, apprenticed to Adm. Sir T.

Dillcs, 122-3
Burial ground, 300

cloisters used as, 56-7

quadrangle used as, 57

disused by Act of Parliament, 198

Burials, 57, 228-31

— children attend, 136, 228-31

— girls act as mutes, 169

— income from, 228, 231

— money received by children divided
with nurses, 230

— beadles duties at, 235
Burnet, Gilbert, 72

Butcher Hall Lane, 48, 60, 199

Buttery, 244-5, 301

Buttons, first used on coat, 186-7

Caius College, 66

Calthrop, John, Aid., Governor, 23

ditch covered over by, 47, 206

Cambridge, Duke of, President, 56, 302
Cambridge, Franciscan settlement at, 5
Cambridge University, first “Blue”
at, 27

Roger Smith sent to, 68-9

right to elect one Almoner, 291

Campion, Edmund, presents address
to Queen Mary, 2^4
Cap used by boys, 185
Captains, applications for apprentices
from, 122, 127
Carey, Mordecai, 87, 274
Carpenter’s shop, 56
Carpets made by girls, 171
Caswell, Mr., 120
Catechism, 67-8, 74-8, 137, 214
Catherine Hall, Cambridge, 272
Cato class, 81
Cecil, 268

Chapman, Thomas, Grey Friars deed of
surrender signed by, 8
Charity Commissioners’ report, 94-6,
129-30, 150, 172, 193

their scheme for reform, 13 1-2,

285-97

suggest teaching of modern

languages, 161

attack on ‘ ‘ Donation Governors,”

289-92

Charles II, founder of Mathematical
School, 100-2

— charter of, 100-3

— appropriates money lent to Govern-
ment, 102

— demands trees from Leesney Abbey
estate, 103

Charsley, Trongon, coal-keeper, 25
“Chasings.” See Elopement

Cheese-house, 302

Chester, Wm., Aid., Governor, 22

Child, Sir Francis, President, 259, 302

— — wards rebuilt by, 51, 55
Choir, 56, 137, 202-3

Christ Church, founded by Henry
VIII, 9

re-opened, 13

parishes united with, 13

first vicar under new charter, 13,

21-2

visited by Corporation, 14

right of presentation, 43

catechism held in, 75-6

choir, 56, 137, 202-3

organ, 138, 141-2, 200-1, 203

boys practice on, 139

organist appointed, 143

books presented by Farrant to,

140

attendance of children, 169, 191-

203, 264

dimensions, 191

serves as a school chapel, 19 1,

195

its connection with C.H., 191-4

bequests, 192-4

special services, 193, 236-7

Reformation sermon, 193

Gunpowder Plot sermon, 193, 200

Digby tomb, 193

disputes with C.H., 196-202, 247

— — “Tabernacle” erected inside,
197

gallery built for boys, 197-8

controversy over pathway to

Hospital, 198-9

portion of site appropriated to

C.H., 199

compensation for, 200

annual grant to curate, 201

tower built, 202

Spital sermons, 219

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Annals of Christ's Hospital"

See other formats